What is the point of GM's notes?

[prabe]

Why would you describe it as not being a living world?

Minor word-order quibble: I wouldn't describe it as "a living world" not I would describe it as "not a living world."

That out of the way ... (sorry)

Mainly because the world isn't the point, I think. The stories that emerge from play are the point. I don't spend any time between sessions plotting what is or might be happening anywhere on the world other than where the PCs are. The only time/s I consider what's going on outside the PC-bubble (your term, but it's a good one) are if/when the PCs are traveling, or if there's something else that's been kicked off that needs tracking.

Well, as stated elsewhere, the term Living World took on a meaning long ago and it pretty much aligns with what I've said above. I'm not saying that people can't feel like their world is living and it not meet those requirements. I'm just saying the gamist term took on a meaning. At the time, the two ideas probably overlapped very well. A lot of time has passed though and others may get that feeling other ways.

So applying the term to your game, I'd say it would be a Living World by definition whatever you thought. If you want to ignore the term and talk about the plain English usage then I'd assuredly have to interview your players.

Fair enough. I haven't prepped anything anywhere in nearly the detail you do. Which is, I suspect a matter of taste/preference--GMs are allowed to have those, too.

Perhaps in order to be a "living world" that has to be explicitly part of the goal? Does that thinking make sense?

 

[Fenris-77]

I know it's a GNS term. I didn't use it that way. I explained myself. You apparently just won't relent.

So you're saying you used the word gamist on a TTRPG site but don't mean gamist in the way anyone else might assume you mean gamist? Seriously, the person who needs to give their position some thought is you, not me bro. Why not just make up your own words? I just farblegarbled some schvitness into my jabaerol with some gamist flahdereha!

I'm not sure what you expected when you're making up your own definitions for things (by which I mean gamist has no currency in describing TTRPGs outside of GNS theory).

 

[Emerikol]

Mainly because the world isn't the point, I think. The stories that emerge from play are the point. I don't spend any time between sessions plotting what is or might be happening anywhere on the world other than where the PCs are. The only time/s I consider what's going on outside the PC-bubble (your term, but it's a good one) are if/when the PCs are traveling, or if there's something else that's been kicked off that needs tracking.

I didn't know this when I responded. I think not having the world change off camera would be a disqualifier if you look at the two things I've listed previously. Off camera == Outside the Bubble.

 

[Maxperson]

Minor word-order quibble: I wouldn't describe it as "a living world" not I would describe it as "not a living world."

That out of the way ... (sorry)

Mainly because the world isn't the point, I think. The stories that emerge from play are the point. I don't spend any time between sessions plotting what is or might be happening anywhere on the world other than where the PCs are. The only time/s I consider what's going on outside the PC-bubble (your term, but it's a good one) are if/when the PCs are traveling, or if there's something else that's been kicked off that needs tracking.

So you don't create the world to be a living world, but your common practices result in it being living anyway?

Perhaps in order to be a "living world" that has to be explicitly part of the goal? Does that thinking make sense?

I don't think intent is necessary. Much like I sometimes accidentally end up speeding, even though I intend to drive the speed limit, you can achieve a living world even if you don't intend to. All it takes is meeting the criteria, much like speeding

If things are happening outside the PC bubble through being prepped, that's all that is really required. I'm sure that there are DMs who run living worlds and have never heard of the term.

 

[Umbran]

then you're the blithering idiot, no offense,

Mod Note:

No offense? Really? "you're the blithering idiot, no offense"?

Did someone in the past tell you, "Hey, Fenris! I discovered this cool thing! You can say whatever rude or insulting things imaginable, but if you add 'no offense intended' to the end, they can't call you on it!" And you bought that malarky? Or, did you actually mean you thought you were talking to blithering idiots, who couldn't read past a two-word, disingenuous disclaimer? I mean, really, I'm not sure which is worse, the insult, or the fact you thought this would fly.

Next time you don't want to cause offense, actually take at least the bog minimum of effort to not cause offense, by not using terms like "blithering idiot", please and thank you.

 

[prabe]

So you don't create the world to be a living world, but your common practices result in it being living anyway?

I'm open to the possibility.

I don't think I could be upset about whether anyone would call it a living world or not; I'm just thinking that a definition of "living world" should include my world (or not) based on whether the author of the definition thinks it is (or not). So, someone who doesn't think I run a "living world" needs to explain the differences. @Emerikol above mentioned that the fact I don't prep anything not connected to the PCs is a disqualifier.

 

[prabe]

I didn't know this when I responded. I think not having the world change off camera would be a disqualifier if you look at the two things I've listed previously. Off camera == Outside the Bubble.

The world does change off-camera--I just don't write it up or otherwise track it before the PCs engage with it, if that makes sense. When the party came back to Pelsoreen several months in-game after leaving, I figured out how it had changed then, not ... while they were doing other stuff.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

As a separate question, could a game have these traits and not be a "living world?" If so, what would such a game be like?

I think there are several examples, to be honest.

My 5E D&D campaign probably fits into this description. I don't think it's so much that I have prepared the setting ahead of time so much as we're using the D&D cosmology as the setting, and relying on past campaigns in various D&D settings as the backdrop. So it's a bit of a cheat in that sense because a lot of the work was done in earlier campaigns we've played, or in the TSR/WOTC products themselves. The players are free to interact with all of that however they see fit.

The Alien mini-campaign I ran probably fits this description. Again, I didn't have to do a ton of prep myself, instead I just stole it from the Alien IP. Specifically, I used the intro module "Chariot of the Gods" and then the video game Alien: Isolation as the foundation for the game. This game was probably a bit more linear than sandbox because there was a kind of "mission" that was central to things, but if they chose to pursue that mission in some unexpected way, I wouldn't have stopped them.

My recent Super Hero game using Forged in the Dark as a system probably fits this description, and such a game is probably the furthest thing many have to a "living world" game as it's being described here. I created the setting entirely, with about 10 districts to the city, and about 25 factions, and a handful of NPCs for each faction. I crafted goals for each faction, and determined some allied factions or opposed factions and the like. Then I crafted an inciting event that began the game, and we went from there.

I think the list needs to be expanded if it's to actually describe a subset of games with their own preferred processes and the like. Otherwise, it's so broad as to describe all manner of games. Which isn't really a bad thing in and of itself, but seems counter to what many would like it to mean.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The word "gamist" currently has two different meanings in an rpg context. One derives from its use by the Forge in GNS theory, which was itself based on the Threefold Model which dates at least as far back as 1997. This refers to challenge-oriented play ie challenging the players.

The second meaning is, in my opinion, much more recent and means something like a dissociated mechanic or ludonarrative dissonance – a game mechanic that doesn’t refer to anything in the game world or is at odds with the 'reality' of the game world.

 

[Fenris-77]

A call for submissions. Can anyone find me a definition of gamist that has anything to do with TTRPGs that isn't connect to the GNS term? I didn't find any, but perhaps my google-fu is weak.