What is the point of GM's notes?

Do you really want to found your argument on a such a steep slippery slope?

It is definitely something of a slippery slope argument, but I would maintain it isn't that steep at all (and I would argue there are definitely signs of the equivocation having occurred in threads in the past). But again, when you have a hobby where so much argument and dispute around styles of play and how play out to be done, center so much on people pivoting around the meanings of 'story', and then you use as your term for 'stuff that is imagined' or 'stuff that happens', a word that both means 'imaginary' and 'story', and has strong, strong connotations of literal novels, then you are asking for that same problem. Again, not an issue in every day speech, but not a good choice for a word that is trying to capture what happens in an RPG, where it is really easy to get lost in the other types of media we frequently compare it to. Which sometimes it should be: if I am making a superheroes RPG inspired by the golden age of comics, then it might make sense to do that. But it depends on what kind of world you are trying to emulate in your design and in your campaign. Terms like story and fiction make that mistake much easier to make and also pave the way for bad actors on all sides.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Good point! It also means that the GM is establishing story -- ie, saying what is happening with characters and events -- removed from what's occurring in play at the table, so this really gets to "fiction" because it's both made up and writing a story like a novel or short story that is to be shared with an audience.

I'm starting to question why @Bedrockgames feels "fiction" doesn't describe his gaming....

I realize you are joking but you are also making a serious critique and that critique illustrates the problem presented by terms like fiction and story.
 

And this is why fiction is loaded. You are loading assumptions into the word and it has everything to do with style. I would argue, the stuff that happens at the table matters but so does the stuff the GM prepares. If the GM decides "This castle is going to exist in this spot, no matter what" it exists in the setting, whether the players find it or not (and that is important because it should exist in the setting in a sandbox whether they find it, they don't, they find it in session one, or they find it in session 10, and treating as existing matters because even if they don't directly encounter it, they may encounter signs of its existence-----if there are encounters in the area around the castle, very possible those encounters are inhabitance of said castle for example---even if the players don't realize that until ten or twenty sessions later)
Bedrockgames is stating what I said in another way but the point is still the same. We see the off camera stuff as an information feed that aids the GM in giving better answers and playing better NPCs. The world is more consistent.

here is an example. Suppose the group comes upon some kids who are playing. The PCs ask them if there are any rooms at the Inn. Now if the GM knows nothing he either just dices for it or says yes. It's all handwaved away off camera unless there is a conflict the GM wants specifically to be there which he will make up if he does. But in a living world, suppose the a regiment of the kings guard just passed through town and the kids are all upset that they seized all the food and there is little left in the village. They might tell the group that the Inn is closed because they can't provide meals but if all they need is shelter they can tell their mom to find them a room.

Now if the group is hot on a mission they may get the room, eat iron rations, and move on to whatever they were doing. The fact that all this info was provided though makes the world seem a lot more real and that is desirable for people in my playstyle. They might also decide to intervene in some way. Maybe they rustle up some food for the townsfolk. Who knows. It's up to the group. In many cases the group will do nothing but they will still be more immersed in a world that seems to be moving around them and isn't static.
 

So you're treating "in the notes" as "established in play." Which means it exists in the fiction before it appears, because you're privileging the GM's notes.

No, I am treating it as established. And yes the castle exists prior to play.

I wouldn't describe the experience as the fiction. It exists in the setting before the players experience it. In some areas the GMs notes are privileged, in some they aren't. This is why 'playing to discover the GM's notes' isn't a good description. How things play out aren't in the notes. How an NPC responds to an insult isn't in the notes. The notes provide the fundamentals of the world, the fundamentals about NPCs. But again, the NPCs are moving, living pieces (dynamic if you don't like living). I think the language you are using, describes some of the styles in the thread very well. I don't think it is very useful to describing what happens in a living world sandbox.
 




Remove ads

Top