What is the point of GM's notes?

[Imaro]

There has mostly been a desire, with a few exceptions, to focus discussion more concretely on specific games, because various games do actively try supporting these techniques through their mechanics, guidelines, and play framework. I think that @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 have both been big advocates for presenting concrete games and their associated techniques that they cultivate. The issue, much as @prabe says, is that some games support certain techniques (or social contract issues regarding player goals, spotlight, etc.) better than others, which may require that you hack or radically change things up.

I am in the camp of making a game your own to suit your specific groups needs or desires, so unless a game actively works against a particular technique... I don't see why the conversation should be limited to only games that actively/best support.

 

[Aldarc]

I definitely take ownership of coming into the thread and stating, as I believed, the title was a trap (because I recognized his wording from one of our arguments earlier). And a bunch of posters chimed in to say I was basically right. But I don't mind taking heat for that particular thing. What I dislike is your steady stream of hostility, which frankly predates this thread.

That "steady stream of hostility" feels two-sided, and it's about time that you own up to your own culpability in that.

Unlike you I don't assume. I don't know all the variations of fair play different cultures have. I know enough that they are not the same. So I qualified my answer. You don't know me well enough to have an opinion on what my views on western civilization are. I will say this, every person on this planet deserves a fair shake and respect. Try showing some yourself and doing the same.

You don't show respect by treating everyone with patronizing condescension, @estar. You don't show respect by making bold statements like this in bold about me. Get the log out of your own eye before criticizing others.

 

[robconley]

(snip)

And this isn't necessarily good or bad, but it is what happens.

Sure and I understand where you coming from.

As you go on to say, there could be a myriad of possibilities.....but usually, a couple present themselves as the obvious choices. I think those obvious ones are very dependent on the GM in D&D and similar games. There's less surprise for the GM....less discovery. The more that the GM decides ahead of time, the more things are determined.

Circa 1990 I would agree. Then I played a LARP for a decade and observed what people did when confronted with similar situation. Granted LARPS are no simulation of how it would play out in D&D. It impact was that it opened my eyes to the possibilities. That what I thought was obvious in 1990 it not that obvious especially witnessing so many making choices that were not the obvious ones on I thought would occur.

As a result I altered my process to consider what was plausible, if there was an option or options that were highly probable, like a apprentice taking revenge against a PC having killed their master, then I would dice to see if that would occur. If that didn't happen then I would choose some of the plausible but less likely outcomes. And I began dicing more to reduce my bias over what obvious. The result of doing so was good. Made for better verisimilitude as what happen as the campaign unfold didn't always feel what Rob Conley would have chosen. Now there were still were time when there was only one choice. But for something like the apprentice seeking revenge. Revenge i.e. killing the guy who kill his master is a pretty big step. And risky. Even for the low stakes of NERO LARP I seen people balk at revenge for many different reason when PvP combat occurred.

Food for thought.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am in the camp of making a game your own to suit your specific groups needs or desires, so unless a game actively works against a particular technique... I don't see why the conversation should be limited to only games that actively/best support.

I don't think it needs to be limited in that way. But I think when a game allows for multiple interpretations or processes of play, then you need to explain clearly how you specifically do things.

For example, when I run D&D 5e, I always openly provide any and all DCs for any checks. I know many GMs who don't share any, and I know plenty who will share some but not others, depending on the circumstances (usually on some kind of attempt to keep player and character knowledge in sync).

I don't expect everyone to play D&D the way I do, so when the topic of DCs comes up, I'll point out that I always disclose all DCs.

That's a pretty basic example, but I hope you get the idea.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That "steady stream of hostility" feels two-sided, and it's about time that you own up to your own culpability in that.

If you want me to be more kindly towards you I am happy to be so. I am not trying to make an enemy of you or anyone else. But when I sense someone is being hostile to me, or someone is insulting me (even if it is concealed under some kind of forum decorum) my pride definitely gets provoked and I will respond, sometimes overly aggressively. Now maybe I said something to you on another thread earlier and I started it and don't realize that. If that is the case, I am happy to own up to my end. But for the time being I think we'd both be better served if we tried to be more charitable towards one another.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think it needs to be limited in that way. But I think when a game allows for multiple interpretations or processes of play, then you need to explain clearly how you specifically do things.

For example, when I run D&D 5e, I always openly provide any and all DCs for any checks. I know many GMs who don't share any, and I know plenty who will share some but not others, depending on the circumstances (usually on some kind of attempt to keep player and character knowledge in sync).

I don't expect everyone to play D&D the way I do, so when the topic of DCs comes up, I'll point out that I always disclose all DCs.

That's a pretty basic example, but I hope you get the idea.

Yep I get the idea, but this is the type of stuff I would rather dig into than discussing the wider umbrella of playstyles which I'm not so sure many games neatly fall into... Why do you disclose DC's... what is the result you are trying to achieve... How well does it achieve that result... What are the downsides of that technique... What are the upsides... what other techniques could achieve the same result... If there are, why not use those?

This is the type of stuff I am interested in hearing about from others.

 

[Fenris-77]

I disclose DCs because i want the difficulty of tasks to be player facing. One, the character would often know how difficult a task is (usually), sonit makes sense. Two, it helps the players make more informed tactical decisions. Both are wins in my book.

 

[Imaro]

I disclose DCs because i want the difficulty of tasks to be player facing. One, the character would often know how difficult a task is (usually), sonit makes sense. Two, it helps the players make more informed tactical decisions. Both are wins in my book.

Thanks. I am curious do the 5e rules dictate that they should or shouldn't be player facing. I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.

 

[Fenris-77]

Thanks. I am curious do the 5e rules dictate that they should or shouldn't be player facing. I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.

Honestly, I don't recall. A peril of having played every edition is that sometimes the rules blend together.

 

[Maxperson]

Thanks. I am curious do the 5e rules dictate that they should or shouldn't be player facing. I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.

I don't think they say explicitly, but they are written in a 1e/2e style with the DM controlling the world, rules, NPCs, etc., so DM facing. I think there might be a short paragraph or two that explains different styles, including allowing players more control, though.