What is the point of GM's notes?

[pemerton]

Fair enough. Don't bother asking me questions again. I don't enjoy wasting my time answering questions and then being ignored.

Huh? I read your reply. What else did you want me to do with it?

 

[Maxperson]

Huh? I read your reply. What else did you want me to do with it?

If you ask me questions and I respond, common courtesy would be to at least give a small acknowledgment. Even a simple like at least tells me that you didn't ignore it and I didn't waste my time. Most people who ask me questions either agree or disagree and let me know that.

 

[pemerton]

I wonder if anyone here has experience with versions of this as part of a more traditional RPG?

There is a GURPS supplement called "Impulse Buys" which allows players to use earned character points (or, alternately, other pools of points) to affect the game state in ways that go well beyond the usual sorts of character spells and powers. I haven't read it carefully yet, but I think it is an attempt to mechanically support more narrative control to the players while still remaining compatible with the balancing mechanisms of GURPS. I see more references on the GURPS forums to people playing hybrid "PBtA-style" (for example) GURPS games. I'm curious how that might play out. I've been surprised over the past few years how much I enjoy allowing some meta-currency in my games, both as a player and a GM.

I like the idea, in theory, of allowing flashbacks even in dungeon crawls (which can have heist-like qualities).

For me, a big part of this is what are the pressure points supposed to be?

In Burning Wheel, equipment is quite a big deal. You have to pay for it as part of PC build. There are multiple PC abilities (Resources; Scavenging; Foraging) which can be checked to obtain equipment by way of action declaration. Damage to or loss of equipment is flagged as a standard sort of adverse consequences; and there are PC abilities (eg Mending) that come into play for maintaining or repairing it. As presented in its core rulebooks, BW doesn't really have scope for a flashback mechanic because if, like Sam Gamgee, you forget to pack rope then that's what you're stuck with!

Prince Valiant, on the other hand, doesn't care about mundane equipment. Characters start with funds but the rulebook is express that this is a sop to RPG player expectations; and it has no gear or price lists (we use the Pendragon ones when we need them). There is equipment that matters - warhorses, embossed armour, bejewelled swords and the like - but that is mostly earned through errantry or the magnanimity of other lords and knights rather than by being purchased. If something comes up where some mundane gear is needed we generally just take it to be available to the characters unless that wouldn't make any sense relative to the current fictional situation.

Heist-style flashbacks would be a different thing again, and open up a different set of expectations and pressure points for play.

 

[Aldarc]

Huge difference from a situation where I-as-character am moving through time sequentially; and when action A leads to consequence B or C or D then IMO action A has to be done first rather than starting with consequence C and backfilling how things got to that point.

That's not generally how flashbacks work in BitD.

 

[Emerikol]

That kind of example was in the post you quoted yes. Not that you'd have to do that anyway, Blades doesn't use a set equipment list for much the same reason it uses flashbacks. I don't know about putting your thumb on the die either, that pretty blatantly indexes the idea of cheating, which is a odd thing to say when you're playing by the rules. Maybe that wasn't what you meant?

Probably better said as adjusting the die roll to your favor using the rules. So if I pull out my +1 sword in traditional D&D I've just advantaged the attack roll by 1 in my favor.

 

[Emerikol]

It would also seem to me that the "skill" in many cases in some of these games would be having a good enough imagination given what is known to weave an outcome you desire. I don't deny that such an approach could be fun but can't you also agree that it does not represent skilled play as your character. Rather it's a game skill you as the player have. When my character figures a puzzle because I really figured it out then that is skilled play that I am doing through my character. I am being my character. That to me is the big difference.

I realize maintaining character viewpoint is not very important to many on here but it's a value from my perspective.

 

[darkbard]

It would also seem to me that the "skill" in many cases in some of these games would be having a good enough imagination given what is known to weave an outcome you desire. I don't deny that such an approach could be fun but can't you also agree that it does not represent skilled play as your character. Rather it's a game skill you as the player have. When my character figures a puzzle because I really figured it out then that is skilled play that I am doing through my character. I am being my character. That to me is the big difference.

I realize maintaining character viewpoint is not very important to many on here but it's a value from my perspective.

Can you explain the difference you see between having a good imagination to weave outcomes (whatever it is you think that means) versus having a good imagination to think the things you do as a player are things your character is doing?

 

[Emerikol]

Can you explain the difference you see between having a good imagination to weave outcomes (whatever it is you think that means) versus having a good imagination to think the things you do as a player are things your character is doing?

One is what your character could be doing. If I come up with an imaginative plan to ambush the enemy orcs then that is very much being in character. My character came up with that plan so to speak.

Whereas if I weave in a flashback or invent new fiction, that is a player activity but not a character one. Unless you are playing a game where the characters can change the fundamental laws of the universe on a whim or time travel on a whim.

It goes back to the player doing something and whether what they do is done through the eyes of their character or not. If not then for me it's not immersing me in the character. It's a metagame decision.

 

[darkbard]

One is what your character could be doing. If I come up with an imaginative plan to ambush the enemy orcs then that is very much being in character. My character came up with that plan so to speak.

There is no "so to speak." That is you coming up with a plan and pretending your character did so. I'm still unclear on what you are contrasting this with.

Whereas if I weave in a flashback or invent new fiction, that is a player activity but not a character one. Unless you are playing a game where the characters can change the fundamental laws of the universe on a whim or time travel on a whim.

It goes back to the player doing something and whether what they do is done through the eyes of their character or not. If not then for me it's not immersing me in the character. It's a metagame decision.

There is no character-enacted change to any fundamental laws. When we speak of flashbacks, for example and as already discussed, we are simply following the character's actions nonlinearly with regard to time. This is no different an act of imagination than following the character's actions linearly in time.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no "so to speak." That is you coming up with a plan and pretending your character did so. I'm still unclear on what you are contrasting this with.

If I'm inhabiting my character, making decisions according to his knowledge, personality, intelligence, etc., then It's effectively the character that came up with it. I as a player might have a better plan, but if my PC doesn't know some of the things that make the plan work, I'm not going to attempt that plan, so it's not purely the player coming up with the plan when you do it our way.

When you "Plan" something during a flashback, there is no character inhabitation going on. It's purely the player coming up with a way to get by the current problem via the flashback mechanic.

When we speak of flashbacks, for example and as already discussed, we are simply following the character's actions nonlinearly with regard to time. This is no different an act of imagination than following the character's actions linearly in time.

It's more than that. You are also overcoming a current obstacle that you might not have known about or even thought might be present. That alone makes it very different from planning in advance.