It strikes me that striving for the sort of living world I like is not something you've ever cared a lot about. My own experience though is that I can use the term in my circles and it is instantly understood what I mean.
I would say that portraying a living world is a pretty big priority for me as a GM, actually.
I think perhaps I simply maintain that it is a fictional thing....a creation.....and so I don't feel the need to determine everything ahead of time in some attempt to emulate how the real world works. That there are other ways that may work to make a fictional setting seem more real or inhabitable rather than predetermination of as much as possible.
You can keep belaboring this point and perhaps fiction is not the most divisive of the lot but no all of your gamist uses of words are not perfect English equivalents. It's just not true. You've come to understand these terms as you do because they are the meta language in your circles and that is fine.
I'm not belaboring a point. I am continually correcting your error that I used "fiction" in any way other than it's most common and applicable definition, and not in some game specific jargon way. If you stop making that error, I won't comment any further.
It's not that nebulous. I've defined it for you many times now.
Pretty loosely, though, no? And in contrast (perhaps only seeming contrast?) to others who have also advocated for the living world approach. This is why to me, it seems somewhat poorly defined.
That is the point. From our experience, it is not true that people who make it up on the fly provide as consistent and immersive world. Just the opposite. My own experience, anecdotal just like yours, is that such worlds are trite and lack depth. Now I've never met you so I am not saying you world is that way. I'm saying that is my experience of people who put no effort into their worlds.
Sure. But this just plays to my point that it's all a matter of preference.
I would agree that for some GMs, having as much prepared ahead of time will suit them and it's what they prefer in order to perform the role as best they can.
I disagree that worlds that are not prepared ahead of time to the extent you're talking about feel trite and lack depth. While it's possible, I'd also say that I've seen plenty of fictional settings that are incredibly detailed and which are trite or lack depth.
I also think that, when it comes to gaming....and in this case I mean specifically the group activity and not anything done by the GM in between sessions......I don't think as much prep is needed as we tend to think. Very often, less is more. Players will often simply accept a fact without some 1000 year backstory of why it is the case.
So I say to my players, "The sun is shining" and they get it without needing to know whether it's a giant ball of gas or if it's Apollo flying his chariot across the sky.
This is the most trivial case not the most significant case. It trivializes the goals of living world proponents.
I agree it's a terrible example, but it was brought up so I ran with it.
Give me a significant example. Can you describe an example of play where you had something determined ahead of time and that enhanced the game with your players?
Well you may be the grandmaster of improv. You may be the smartest man I've ever not met. I'm just saying I don't see it pulled off successfully other than as a theoretical. So practically I've never seen a GM improv most things and have anything but a shambles of a world that I can't believe in at all. So I'm not arguing with you theoretically. I am arguing with you practically.
Right, but I think you said almost all your experience is with one game, right? Or most of it? Perhaps you're approaching the entire discussion through that lens? Which is understandable, sure, but at the same time maybe be aware of it? There are entire games that function without the amount of prep you're describing as "necessary" to achieve the feeling of a living world.