• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

What is the point of GM's notes?

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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?
Within the restrictions I provided above. The living world stuff needs to be prepped ahead of time and exist independent of the PC bubble. The specific methods for achieving that depends on what works for the DM.
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.
Sure. If the specific game requires one method of achieving the living world, then that's what will be used. And it's possible that the game rules will not allow a living world at all.
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.
I agree. I said in a post above that not running a living world isn't a bad thing at all. It's not lesser DMing. It's different DMing. I like to run a living world, and I prefer to play in one, but I've played in many games that just weren't run that way and had a fantastic time. As an analogy, burgers with bacon(living world) on them are delicious, but I've had some fantastically good burgers without bacon and on some burgers, bacon would actually detract from the taste.
So the GM should be introducing things that the PCs are meant to interact with? Or at least, are potentially meant to interact with?
Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with things, even the vast majority of things existing within the PC bubble. That's where 99%(or more) of the game is played.
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
Well, again, the bolded part isn't really living world dependent. That's a trait that applies to any prep playstyle. It could be sandbox, railroad, linear, etc. The second one seems good. I would put a "some" in front of events in the third bullet point.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Emerikol

Adventurer
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

Well, again, the bolded part isn't really living world dependent. That's a trait that applies to any prep playstyle. It could be sandbox, railroad, linear, etc. The second one seems good. I would a "some" in front of events in the third bullet point.

I would disagree that the bolded part is optional. The prep is what makes it a living world. I would agree that the amount of prep can be debated. That would be an intramural debate between living world proponents.

And @hawkeyefan, I think bullet two is probably not necessary. Of course anything could become player knowledge if they go in that direction but who would dispute that. I would think it's assumed.
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
The following quotations provide examples of the use of “living world” and related terms – “living, breathing campaign world”, “real world”, “living setting” – in D&D.

Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide (1990)
The campaign is more than a game world or a clever plot line. It must be a place for the player characters to live, grow, and develop. For their character development to have any meaning beyond inflicting megadeath, acquiring zillions of experience points, and collecting vast, tax-free inventories of gold coins and arcane devices, the characters need a world upon which their actions, the outcomes of their adventures, can have a real effect; a world whose events, in turn, affect the player characters themselves.

When properly created, the campaign is a living, breathing, growing, and most importantly, changing game environment. It is a place that the DM builds, but which gains its life from the continued involvement of both the DM and his players. (pg 51)

Dragon #200 (1993)
When players become interested in a campaign world they want to know about its cultures, monsters, and important characters, and additional products make that possible. Players want more than just one evening’s adventure. They want to respond to happenings around them and such actions are part of what is necessary to make a world a living, breathing thing. (pg 82)

World Builder’s Guidebook (1996)
In this approach [Microscopic], the DM starts with a dungeon, town, or similar focused setting, and works his way outward… This method for world-building applies when you have a fragment of a world—a small province, town, or dungeon—already prepared, and you're trying to flesh out this one dimensional construct into a living, breathing campaign world. (pg 5)

3.5e DMG (2003)
If the PCs come back to buy more horses at the stables, you could have them discover that the man who ran the place went back home to the large city over the hills, and now his nephew runs the family business. That sort of change—one that has nothing to do with the PCs directly, but one that they’ll notice—makes the players feel as though they’re adventuring in a living world as real as themselves, not just a flat backdrop that exists only for them to delve its dungeons. (pg 6)

The most important purpose of a campaign is to make the players feel that their characters live in a real world. This appearance of realism, also called verisimilitude, is important because it allows the players to stop feeling like they’re playing a game and start feeling more like they’re playing roles. When immersed in their roles, they are more likely to react to evil Lord Erimbar than they are to you playing Lord Erimbar. (pg 129)

4e DMG (2008)
When characters leave a part of your adventure setting and venture back later, it should change in response to their actions. This kind of detail helps the setting seem more real and alive to the players. Monsters the party has killed should (usually) stay dead—the site shouldn’t just reset to the state it was in the first time around. But the second delve might well present new threats to the characters. Intelligent survivors of the characters’ first intrusion into their domain react appropriately, bolstering their defenses or evacuating the area. New creatures might appear in areas left vacant, such as predators drawn to shelter and prey opportunities. A living setting provides repeat play value and continues to hold the players’ interest. (pg 139)

5e DMG (2014)
If the adventurers come back to buy more horses at the stables, they might discover that the man who ran the place went back home to the large city over the hills, and now his niece runs the family business. That sort of change—one that has nothing to do with the adventurers directly, but one that they'll notice—makes the players feel as though their characters are part of a living world that changes and grows along with them. (pg 4) This is very similar to the quotation from page 6 of the 3.5e DMG.
 
Last edited:

hawkeyefan

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

What's the difference? The bit about how you would do it? In that case, I wouldn't say I've never been interested in running a game that way.....I used to feel similarly to how you do.


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.

My use of fiction was "make believe". Do you think fiction means "make believe"?

If so, then yes, it would apply to the shared fiction of the game that the GM and players experience together. It would also apply to the GMs notes, whether they make it into play or not. It would also apply to the lie that the Gm told his boss so he could skip work and go play D&D with his friends.

If you think fiction doesn't mean "make believe" then okay.


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.

So you're advocating for one creative voice? In a collaborative game?

And yes, I do think a fictional world can be coherent when it has multiple people contributing. Is it more prone to inconsistencies? That's certainly possible. Do I think the kind of inconsistencies that result are all that meaningful? Very rarely.

Also, I think that not committing to everything beforehand removes a lot of the risk of inconsistencies. Or maybe that such insonsistencies will exist only for the GM, and so I'm not worried about them.

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".

I mean....couldn't he say that with or without your pamphlet?
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
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

Well, again, the bolded part isn't really living world dependent. That's a trait that applies to any prep playstyle. It could be sandbox, railroad, linear, etc. The second one seems good. I would put a "some" in front of events in the third bullet point.

I would disagree that the bolded part is optional. The prep is what makes it a living world. I would agree that the amount of prep can be debated. That would be an intramural debate between living world proponents.

And @hawkeyefan, I think bullet two is probably not necessary. Of course anything could become player knowledge if they go in that direction but who would dispute that. I would think it's assumed.

Here's what I meant by "nebulous", @Emerikol . It's hard to get folks to agree on even the basics.

Where as if you look at the examples from different D&D books from different editions that @Doug McCrae provided, none of them indicate that heavy prep is required. The closest phrase to something like that is "It is a place that the DM builds, but which gains its life from the continued involvement of both the DM and his players."

And if we remove the bit about prep, leaving only the second and third bullet points, I don't know if there's a game that wouldn't suggest these two items.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I would disagree that the bolded part is optional. The prep is what makes it a living world. I would agree that the amount of prep can be debated. That would be an intramural debate between living world proponents.
Do you think prep is part of railroads and linear games? If so, then it's not specific to living words. Do living worlds involve prep? Yes, but you can prep sandbox games, railroads, and linear games without having a living world, so prep is a function of the style of game rather than living world.
 


Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Within the restrictions I provided above. The living world stuff needs to be prepped ahead of time and exist independent of the PC bubble. The specific methods for achieving that depends on what works for the DM.
No it doesn't. I have no idea why anyone persists with this bit of fiction. That could be true for some stuff, sure, but it's not universally true, nor even necessary in any given instance.
 

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.
On the basis of nothing then, since you have no idea of my experiences of this ’style‘ and therefore no basis to claim a better understanding of it.

Fail.
 

prabe

Tension, apprension, and dissension have begun
Supporter
On the basis of nothing then, since you have no idea of my experiences of this ’style‘ and therefore no basis to claim a better understanding of it.

Fail.
I can see what seems to be a near miss, and endeavor to provide a nearer one, which I did.
 

Remove ads

Top