Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8253715" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Yes, I agree. I think in this case, pemerton gave his idea of what this style of play seems to be. This is a conclusion, I expect, that he's come to as a result of playing that kind of game. He's boiling it down to it's basic parts and looking at it, and saying &quot;this is how this seems to me&quot;. The thread topic is about GM notes and the purpose they serve. We know what purpose pemerton seems to think they serve in games that have been describd as sandbox. To be honest, it still seems pretty accurate in my book, although I agree that yes, there is more to it. Sure. Isn't that largely what the players, via their characters, do? In my 5E D&amp;D game, it simply is. Is there more to it? Yes, of course.....my notes (as they are) consist of lots of input from the players. So it's not solely my creation. But I am the one that acts as the kind of filter for everything. It all comes through me, for the most part. The players in D&amp;D are not really free to establish details in play or the thrust of play without me making it so.Yes, I absolutely agree. But the GM is absolutely vital to the process more so than any individual player. Again, this is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Many games have the GM as the primary source of the fiction, with the players only contributing through the actions they declare for their characters, and how those may influence the GM's ideas. The kicker to me seems to be that the folks who balk at permerton's idea of playing to find out what's in the GM's notes are also folks who will acknowledge that the GM is the primary contributor to the fiction. Or the imagined shared idea space. These two things seem to largely be the same thing, to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8253715, member: 6785785"] Yes, I agree. I think in this case, pemerton gave his idea of what this style of play seems to be. This is a conclusion, I expect, that he's come to as a result of playing that kind of game. He's boiling it down to it's basic parts and looking at it, and saying "this is how this seems to me". The thread topic is about GM notes and the purpose they serve. We know what purpose pemerton seems to think they serve in games that have been describd as sandbox. To be honest, it still seems pretty accurate in my book, although I agree that yes, there is more to it. Sure. Isn't that largely what the players, via their characters, do? In my 5E D&D game, it simply is. Is there more to it? Yes, of course.....my notes (as they are) consist of lots of input from the players. So it's not solely my creation. But I am the one that acts as the kind of filter for everything. It all comes through me, for the most part. The players in D&D are not really free to establish details in play or the thrust of play without me making it so. Yes, I absolutely agree. But the GM is absolutely vital to the process more so than any individual player. Again, this is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Many games have the GM as the primary source of the fiction, with the players only contributing through the actions they declare for their characters, and how those may influence the GM's ideas. The kicker to me seems to be that the folks who balk at permerton's idea of playing to find out what's in the GM's notes are also folks who will acknowledge that the GM is the primary contributor to the fiction. Or the imagined shared idea space. These two things seem to largely be the same thing, to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification