What is the point of GM's notes?

[Emerikol]

LIVING WORLD TRAITS

• GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
• Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement

What else can we add to the list? And can we get more specific at all?

I'm glad you at least acknowledged my prior explanations.

I think you could go on about practical ways of achieving the above but the above is definitely what we are seeking. It's what we mean by a living world. You could also dial it up or down by GM. I'm sure I am dialed a bit higher than average but I find doing it to be a pleasure so perhaps it's easier for me.

At the point where the dial goes too low? Not sure I have an absolute line but if I were in a game I'd recognize pretty quick that the setting was lacking or not. I don't have to know the answer though as I game with people who are on the same page. I don't worry about other games all that much other than as points of interest and fun ways to have an occasional debate.

 

[chaochou]

LIVING WORLD TRAITS

• GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
• Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement

What else can we add to the list? And can we get more specific at all?

• The purpose is the 'immersion' of the GM in their setting, not of the players in the game

 

[Maxperson]

But here's what I'm struggling with......the Prep GM and the improv GM could introduce this news in the exact same way. One had it written down ahead of time, and the other just thinks it up in the moment. So i get that the method is different.

What is the impact on play? How is actual play impacted differently using one method over the other?

The impact is hopefully the feel that you invoke. The response from the players is likely to be identical. They will respond or ignore the rumor of the meteor impact as they see fit. That's why I say that living, breathing is a goal and not a playstyle. A playstyle is about more than just the feel of what you are trying to do, and living, breathing can be applied to multiple different playstyles.

It would seem to me to be identical. Here is some news your PCs have heard of a far off place and what is going on there. Perhaps this will be interesting enough fo you to want to go there. Or perhaps as things progress in the game, the context of this news will become more obvious.

Again, the feel is what you are going for. Most of the time the group is going to know what kind of DM that they are playing with, so they will have a very good idea whether or not it was made up on the fly or in the notes.

I'm personally a mixture of improv and notes, mostly because I just don't have time to prep as much as when I was younger. However, the vast majority of the improv that I do is just filling in the details, not major stuff, so my players still know that a meteor hitting a city is something that was set up in my notes and not done on the fly.

Okay, but the same could be said if the GM is just making it up on the fly. The PCs leave home city on their planar adventure, and so they don't overhear news of far off places.

In theory I guess the DM might say to himself, "Hmm. I have an idea. I'm going to have a meteor strike a city, but news won't come to this town until after the PCs leave, so they will never hear about it." In practice, though, that just doesn't happen. DMs as a rule don't create things that they know will never see the light of day. Even the prep DM intended for the PCs to learn about the meteor strike, he just didn't account for the players deciding to skip to another plane for a long time. If an improv DM comes up with it, it will be to let the PCs know about it at the time he comes up with it.

Right, this is because it's subjective. What will feel like a living world to one person may not feel like that to another. The goal, I would expect, is to find the techniques and methods that would somehow evoke the living world feeling from as many people as possible.

So far, when it comes to those methods, it seems like:

LIVING WORLD TRAITS

• GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
• Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement

What else can we add to the list? And can we get more specific at all?

The first one is a trait of a sandbox. Significant prepping ahead of time is more to have a lot of world detail for the players. The second trait is pretty much what goes into the living world. I'm not sure you can get much more specific than that. There are different ways you can achieve it, such as random tables, choice or a combination. Heck, you could throw darts at a piece of paper if you wanted. The primary thing, though, is that the events or situations happen outside of the PC bubble.

 

[prabe]

• The purpose is the 'immersion' of the GM in their setting, not of the players in the game

Almost, but not quite.

The GM is securing their own suspension of disbelief, so they can then enable their players'.

At least, that's the way I see it, as someone who doesn't claim to run that type of game.

 

[chaochou]

The GM is securing their own suspension of disbelief, so they can then enable their players'.

Since you don't claim to run this kind of game, on what basis are you now suggesting you get to correct my understanding?

Almost, but not quite.

Close, but no cigar.

 

[Maxperson]

Almost, but not quite.

The GM is securing their own suspension of disbelief, so they can then enable their players'.

At least, that's the way I see it, as someone who doesn't claim to run that type of game.

I don't immerse or suspend disbelief when I'm prepping the game. During the game I will immerse myself in NPCs and monsters to better play them, but that doesn't have anything to do with the living world.

The feel I hope to evoke with living world methods is something that I think aids the players immerse into the world, though.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

 

[prabe]

Since you don't claim to run this kind of game, on what basis are you now suggesting you get to correct my understanding?

On the basis of the fact that it's hard to draw a boundary around the games where people claim this as a goal or method, which doesn't exclude mine. At least, every attempt to define "living world" I've seen in this thread has described my campaigns. Some have also included people running published adventures, though, so it's at least as likely the definitions are at fault.

Also on the basis of your "Hey, Guys" post. Kinda hard to take seriously analysis that starts from mockery.

Close, but no cigar.

So near, and yet so far.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The impact is hopefully the feel that you invoke. The response from the players is likely to be identical. They will respond or ignore the rumor of the meteor impact as they see fit. That's why I say that living, breathing is a goal and not a playstyle. A playstyle is about more than just the feel of what you are trying to do, and living, breathing can be applied to multiple different playstyles.

I agree it's a goal not a playstyle. Which is why I think it's a poor term to describe a method or collection of processes.

But if I'm understanding what you're saying, then it's really more about what method works for the GM....what makes them comfortable enough to then portray a world that is more likely to feel like a living world to the players, right?

Again, the feel is what you are going for. Most of the time the group is going to know what kind of DM that they are playing with, so they will have a very good idea whether or not it was made up on the fly or in the notes.

I'm personally a mixture of improv and notes, mostly because I just don't have time to prep as much as when I was younger. However, the vast majority of the improv that I do is just filling in the details, not major stuff, so my players still know that a meteor hitting a city is something that was set up in my notes and not done on the fly.

Well, this is where a specific game would play a big part. Many games don't really allow for "types of GMs"; many have a very specific role for the GM with very specific processes they should be using. Yes, the role always requires judgment, but exactly how the role is carried out is not always vaguely defined by a game, such as it is with many iterations of D&D.

But the idea of playing Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark and thinking of the use of improv as some kind of lesser GMing is just flawed thinking.

It would be like a scriptwriter looking at an RPG session and saying "Wait, where's the script? We can't have all these people ad-libbing!!"

In theory I guess the DM might say to himself, "Hmm. I have an idea. I'm going to have a meteor strike a city, but news won't come to this town until after the PCs leave, so they will never hear about it." In practice, though, that just doesn't happen. DMs as a rule don't create things that they know will never see the light of day. Even the prep DM intended for the PCs to learn about the meteor strike, he just didn't account for the players deciding to skip to another plane for a long time. If an improv DM comes up with it, it will be to let the PCs know about it at the time he comes up with it.

So the GM should be introducing things that the PCs are meant to interact with? Or at least, are potentially meant to interact with?

The first one is a trait of a sandbox. Significant prepping ahead of time is more to have a lot of world detail for the players. The second trait is pretty much what goes into the living world. I'm not sure you can get much more specific than that. There are different ways you can achieve it, such as random tables, choice or a combination. Heck, you could throw darts at a piece of paper if you wanted. The primary thing, though, is that the events or situations happen outside of the PC bubble.

I'm struggling to have these last two sections jibe. Things should happen outside the PC bubble, but with the intention that they could become part of the PC bubble?

Should we revise our list of traits like this?

LIVING WORLD TRAITS

• GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
• These prepared items may originate beyond the PCs' sphere of influence, but with the expectation that they could enter that sphere
• Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement

 

[Emerikol]

I would say that portraying a living world is a pretty big priority for me as a GM, actually.

I didn't say that. You changed the ground rules. Read what I wrote again.

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.

I don't think anyone is disputing that you are making this point from your perspective. Some of us may have no experience of it but we aren't disputing that you are making that point.

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.

Well I should be careful because I can't be 100% sure that you specifically made erroneous comments about fiction. So let me state what I believe was said in this thread.

The fiction is the shared experience of the characters and GM. Is this right? If so then I dispute your definition is the English language definition.

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.

No I just replied to you recently. You wrote it down. Two easy to understand points.

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.

Do you suppose that if ten people took turns extending a story that it would be as coherent as something authored carefully over time? As I'm building my world, prior to campaign start, I can decide something doesn't fit and change it after I've done more work. I can "refactor" things until I get them where I want them before starting the game. I can't imagine just answering questions off the cuff would be as consistent. I mean there are arguments for your style. I don't think arguing the consistency line would be a good one to take. Argue the freedom of choosing as you go and the organic discovery of new things. That might be a positive for your style at least in your players eyes I'd think.

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.

There is an art of choosing what to prep and what not to prep. Where do you draw the line.

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.

yes but if I've handed a religion pamphlet to my cleric player and his beliefs are that it is Apollo then he may feel good about being able to say "Ah Apollo shines forth upon us all".

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?

To be honest, almost everything I feel that way about. I feel if I were making it up as I go it would be of inferior quality. The first thing that pops into my head is not always the best thing.

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.

One style is perhaps more appropriate. I've played a variety of games of that style.

I find a lot of these games to be academically interesting. There could be a time and place where they might be a fun thing to do. Over the course of a few years, every week? No. I don't think that would be very satisfying.