What is the point of GM's notes?

[Maxperson]

Most of my notes are written post game as a response to the characters actions.

My future notes will be for sure. If they're going to the mountains of Chukem Downapit to delve into the pits looking for ancient magic, I need to know what's in them and do a little prep. Again, it will just be an outline that we fill in during game play, but I'll have at least some idea of what's there before they arrive.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yup, post game notes are the notes I write that actually look like notes. That's where I take the action of the session and apply it to whatever wider consequences might be appropriate and start thinking about how that could drive the next session, depending of course on player response.

My pregame notes are very siloed, and have become more so over time. I have monsters, and tables about encounters, and NPCs, and factions (both with motivations and goals, all sorts of charts and tables for evocative detail, and that sort of thing. I usually have no real idea how those parts will fit together until the players start doing stuff, at which point things usually start to crystallize.

There are games where the players are literally playing to find out what's in the notes, and even that doesn't have to be a bad thing. I'd describe most published adventure paths as that, to some extent. It's also how a lot of people begin to learn to GM.

 

[Manbearcat]

It is possible I am misunderstanding here, but I don't think authorship is a good word for what is occurring (definitely do not see this as writing fiction or creating fiction----there is still a very interactive element and conversational element and that plays out over the model of the living world people have been talking about. But the above doesn't seem to account for the role of dice, the role of the synergy discussed earlier (point 5 might fit the bill here, but not sure---depends on what the constraints in question are). The issue this raises is it is pretty hard to distinguish based on asserting in our style only 1-4 are important between what we do, what an adventure path does, and what a GM as storyteller does (you can reject our description of what we do, but I don't think anyone can honestly assert those three things are the same thing). If I had to pin the essence of living world to one idea or statement (and I don't think you can do that, it would be along the lines of t'he most important part of living world is the GM determining what NPCs do, in response to what players do and the ensuing interaction that produces + dice'. It fundamentally boils down to deciding how things arise in the world through the characters, groups, and other forces in that world.

I think the best way to try to examine what @pemerton just put forward is to zoom in tightly to a discrete moment of play; of new content being introduced/the gamestate changing.

It appears that what happens sometimes is we’re all talking about different levels of zoom (and we’re assuming our zoom is similar). If the zoom goes way too far out and tries to capture the breadth of the collective moments of all of play, that is different than a discrete moment of content introduction/gamestate change.

So, to that end, in maybe 2-3 sentences, what other types of content introduction/gamestate change are you envisioning beyond the (1) - (6) pemerton has proposed above? If you could label then as 7, 8 (and so forth), that would be helpful.

 

[Maxperson]

There are games where the players are literally playing to find out what's in the notes, and even that doesn't have to be a bad thing. I'd describe most published adventure paths as that, to some extent. It's also how a lot of people begin to learn to GM.

I agree and I don't run adventure paths for just that reason. I have Candle Keep Mysteries, because they are little adventures I can insert into one of my games if I want. I'll get Yawning Portal for the same reason. I did buy the new Undermountain, but I'm not going to use as a huge dungeon delve campaign. I'll probably just isolate the levels and use them as separate dungeons in my game if I need one and don't have time to prep my own. The only real adventure path that I own is one of the dragon ones, and that's because one of my players bought it for me as a gift. One of these days I'll have to dig though it and see what I can steal for use.

As for new players using them to learn to DM, I absolutely agree. I'm the primary DM for my group, but two of the others periodically give me a break for a while. One of them was a novice DM who wanted to dip his toes into the DM waters and see how it went. He came to use before he began and said that he was using an adventure path and asked us if we would agree not to deviate, since he was new and wasn't sure he could run the game well if we did. Of course we all said yes and hopped on that train. Now if we decide to deviate, he goes with it since he has experience running the game. He's still rough around the edges, but he's getting there.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think the best way to try to examine what @pemerton just put forward is to zoom in tightly to a discrete moment of play; of new content being introduced/the gamestate changing.

It appears that what happens sometimes is we’re all talking about different levels of zoom (and we’re assuming our zoom is similar). If the zoom goes way too far out and tries to capture the breadth of the collective moments of all of play, that is different than a discrete moment of content introduction/gamestate change.

So, to that end, in maybe 2-3 sentences, what other types of content introduction/gamestate change are you envisioning beyond the (1) - (6) pemerton has proposed above? If you could label then as 7, 8 (and so forth), that would be helpful.

I don't think this level of zoom is going to be very fruitful because in my view it is distorting what is going on. I am fairly skeptical of this approach helping to shed light on the importance of GMs notes, the role of GMs notes in a living sandbox, or helping to explain what a living world is. For example, I can zoom in on a melody and see an interval, and say "it is just one note going to another" but that misses the point of patterning scales and harmonizing chords. You could say it is just the guitar player for example deciding which note to play. But it isn't just that because I am beholden to the context, and if you carry that into an RPG, the context is the living world in this case. The GM isn't simply deciding what happens: the GM is deciding what a given NPC does, or how an aspect of the setting responds to player choices. And it is often mediated by dice rolls. The context (all the choices the PCs, NPCs, factions have made, etc.....this is a bit like the surrounding harmonies, rhythm, etc guiding the guitar player's choices. The GM is not 'the decider': in a good living world sandbox, the GM is constrained in many ways. The one way they are not generally constrained though is by out of character, PC choices or contributions (though there is flexibility there). It is a lot like Fenris was saying: the GM is prepping pieces but doesn't really know how things will pan out until play beings and those pieces and the players begin doing things.

 

[hawkeyefan]

"enhances play" is purely subjective. I have no objective example to share. And as for supporting protagonism, one style of play has stolen the term and used to describe only their style play, excluding the playstyles of others, so no, I have no example of their definition of protagonism, because I don't play their style.

And a good start to that would be using different terms. It's not productive to use a term that you know people don't like and are resisting, and then tell them to suck it up(with nicer language) and just discuss things.

So no examples? Just more discussion about the discussion?

Come on Max. Provide an example from one of your games that shows something that you like about “your style”. Is it that hard?

And just to be clear....I’m not setting a trap here. I don’t expect your response to be objective. I’m asking you specifically for an example from your game.

Play examples would be more helpful than complaining for more pages about a term. And although I am indeed saying to suck it up, I am asking because I’d genuinely like to hear it.

When I play D&D, I'm "playing to achieve the goals I set forth for my PC."

Okay....who was your most recent PC? What were his/her goals? How did the GM facilitate these goals? How were you as a player able to pursue them? What about the other players; did they help or hinder the process?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Would you prefer GM scribbles? GM planning? GM back of an Applebee's napkin? GM drippings of genius? IDK, throw out some variants. I thought GM notes was pretty vanilla, as is playing to find out what's in the GM notes. I have notes, and the players, during play, often find out what's in them, and to some extent are even playing to find out what's in them because what's in them is at least the seed(s) of the solution to whatever action is at hand. The pejorative part is all in the treatment and deployment of those notes.

You can have multiple protagonists, I don't know why you're hung up on that. I don't know that protagonist play needs to focus on dramatic need either. That's one reading, but not one I'm completely happy with. I think a stable definition there would cast a wider net in terms of what a GM can do do implement and foster the idea. (Same with dramatic needs, frankly, lots of ways to get there to, and lots of degrees to which it can be used or thought to be important).

I have pretty significant ADD too, so I feel ya there. I wasn't capable of summoning detail from a game session afterwards until I started taking copious notes. It's a pain sometimes in play, but the value to me has been high. YMMV, of course.

To zoom in here, because this is a point of disagreement between us, I'm not sure what value would be gained by expanding the definition of protagonist play to something other than focusing on the dramatic needs of the character. There's a distinct difference in focus outlined by this definition, and it's one that's useful because it goes a good way to exploring what a game is about. If we expand this to other things, like, say, just a PC goal, then we've made this distinction useless, and will just need a different term to discuss it. If the goal is to make the term protagonism useless because people don't like the way the term is used, that's a different thing.

So, why do I think the distinction between a character dramatic need and a character goal is important? Because it isolates the focus of play. If play is about my character's dramatic need, then it's focused on the character -- things are framed in terms of these needs and outcomes revolve around them. This makes the character the focus of the game, but doesn't, at all, mean they get a break. If anything, this focus is far more punishing on the character, and more exhausting to the player, than a game where such focus isn't held. I think this makes for a distinct difference in play that's not aided by expanding the definition. And it's not an absolute term -- a game doesn't have protagonism or not, there can be a mix, but I also think that this mix is a difficult thing to pull off, because it requires switching focus between a character dramatic need and an NPC dramatic need. That's a good challenge, but it also muddies the focus of the game, and I'm not sure if there's a great deal of use to mixing it up. Perhaps a mostly non-protagonism game can do so with short side-treks of protagonism, but I think the vice-versa would be a bit more jarring to a player. Maybe not, willing to listen to other opinions.

But, and this is key, it's very important to differentiate between a character dramatic need and a character goal. Character goals don't have to have anything at all to do with the character. For example, stop the evil overlord from summoning the demon apocalypse is a great character goal, but it's not a dramatic need. The difference is that this goal doesn't speak to anything at all fundamental about the character, it's just something the character is going to do. I can swap in a different character and have the same goal with no change. Dramatic needs should be special to the character. If I have a dramatic need of "will I be able to resist my alcoholism and support my friends," then this is special to the character -- you can't just swap in a different character and have this remain the same (if you do, I'd question just how invested in playing to dramatics needs are to you). This is a key difference. Likewise, a character goal to research a new spell is fine, but not a dramatic need. It may server a dramatic need, but it isn't one itself. This is a critical difference I think has been glossed a number of times in this thread (general, not specific, you here).

And, of course, you can have multiple dramatic needs from multiple characters. Speaking to the singular is for clarity and simplicity of the post, so I don't have lots of "or that of other characters" floating about.

 

[Maxperson]

To zoom in here, because this is a point of disagreement between us, I'm not sure what value would be gained by expanding the definition of protagonist play to something other than focusing on the dramatic needs of the character. There's a distinct difference in focus outlined by this definition, and it's one that's useful because it goes a good way to exploring what a game is about. If we expand this to other things, like, say, just a PC goal, then we've made this distinction useless, and will just need a different term to discuss it. If the goal is to make the term protagonism useless because people don't like the way the term is used, that's a different thing.

So, why do I think the distinction between a character dramatic need and a character goal is important? Because it isolates the focus of play. If play is about my character's dramatic need, then it's focused on the character -- things are framed in terms of these needs and outcomes revolve around them. This makes the character the focus of the game, but doesn't, at all, mean they get a break. If anything, this focus is far more punishing on the character, and more exhausting to the player, than a game where such focus isn't held. I think this makes for a distinct difference in play that's not aided by expanding the definition. And it's not an absolute term -- a game doesn't have protagonism or not, there can be a mix, but I also think that this mix is a difficult thing to pull off, because it requires switching focus between a character dramatic need and an NPC dramatic need. That's a good challenge, but it also muddies the focus of the game, and I'm not sure if there's a great deal of use to mixing it up. Perhaps a mostly non-protagonism game can do so with short side-treks of protagonism, but I think the vice-versa would be a bit more jarring to a player. Maybe not, willing to listen to other opinions.

But, and this is key, it's very important to differentiate between a character dramatic need and a character goal. Character goals don't have to have anything at all to do with the character. For example, stop the evil overlord from summoning the demon apocalypse is a great character goal, but it's not a dramatic need. The difference is that this goal doesn't speak to anything at all fundamental about the character, it's just something the character is going to do. I can swap in a different character and have the same goal with no change. Dramatic needs should be special to the character. If I have a dramatic need of "will I be able to resist my alcoholism and support my friends," then this is special to the character -- you can't just swap in a different character and have this remain the same (if you do, I'd question just how invested in playing to dramatics needs are to you). This is a key difference. Likewise, a character goal to research a new spell is fine, but not a dramatic need. It may server a dramatic need, but it isn't one itself. This is a critical difference I think has been glossed a number of times in this thread (general, not specific, you here).

And, of course, you can have multiple dramatic needs from multiple characters. Speaking to the singular is for clarity and simplicity of the post, so I don't have lots of "or that of other characters" floating about.

Just call it dramatic need. Why do you need to take a word that applies to everyone and redefine it so that only your playstyle gets to use it?

 

[pemerton]

I think using writing fiction as a comparison is kinda fraught, as appropriate as it may be.

I agree. I don't treat GMing as though I'm writing stories

I think there are some places where a comparison to other sorts of composition of fiction is apt: vibrant characters who have a clear place in the situation are helpful. And so are compelling situations.
Of course "compelling" is pretty expansive - that might be everything from a conception of a place (a mountain pass, an ancient temple) to a challenge to a PC (a rejection from a friend, being taken prisoner) to a vibrant NPC in action.

My models for this tend to be comics and cinema. But not always. The last time I as GM authored a wizard's tower it was because I was inspired by REH's Tower of the Elephant.

 

[pemerton]

This seems to be a sticking point. As far as I can tell, you seem unwilling to discuss play from the starting point that someone has to make up the imaginary stuff.

It is possible I am misunderstanding here, but I don't think authorship is a good word for what is occurring (definitely do not see this as writing fiction or creating fiction----there is still a very interactive element and conversational element and that plays out over the model of the living world people have been talking about.

I personally find it impossible to talk about where the fiction comes from without talking about who creates it. And the most straightforward word in English to describe the creation of fiction is authorship.

I frequently co-author work. This involves a lot of interaction and conversation. That doesn't mean that the work is spontaneously generating itself, though. It is being authored.

But the above doesn't seem to account for the role of dice, the role of the synergy discussed earlier (point 5 might fit the bill here, but not sure---depends on what the constraints in question are). The issue this raises is it is pretty hard to distinguish based on asserting in our style only 1-4 are important

I didn't say anything about what is important in "your style".

I talked about an assumption that I see emerging in the thread. That's all.

The dice can be very important in some RPGing, less so in others. In Burning Wheel, the result of a dice roll associated with an action declaration and resolution process may be very important in determining whether or not a secret door is found. In @Emerikol's game, not so much - the most important consideration is whether or not the GM has decided a secret door is present in the location in question.

If you want to post something about the role of action resolution via dice rolls in establishing the fiction in your play, that would be a very welcome post.