What is the point of GM's notes?

[Fenris-77]

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.

Perhaps you'd like to fill us in then? It's all about the deets...

 

[Les Moore]

To help the GM adjust the difficulty level or CR to a given sandbox to match the experience level of a party.

 

[Fenris-77]

To help the GM adjust the difficulty level or CR to a given sandbox to match the experience level of a party.

You realize there are whole swathes of the hobby where CR and difficulty of encounter aren't a thing like they are in 5E, right? Like, OSR everything, for example.

 

[Les Moore]

I also drink a lot less coffee, and get a lot more sleep than I used to.

 

[Emerikol]

@Emerikol sees prep as necessary to have a living world and he is correct. Where he's going wrong is in assuming that prep is what makes a living world. It doesn't. You can prep all kinds of games without having a living world.

I didn't say #1 was the only requirement. I said it was an essential requirement. My list had two items on it.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

As the gamist term is used he is right by definition. Now you can argue that you feel like the world is real using other methods but the gamist term developed as a reaction to campaigns that felt neither real nor immersive back when everyone was essentially using the same style. Some were just doing it poorly.

 

[prabe]

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?

 

[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
• 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

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

Our difference was whether it alone was sufficient and we both agree that there is more to it than that alone. The world can't be static and be a living world. The living part requires dynamism and not just detail. While #2 is absolutely true, I feel it's redundant because anything in theory "could" enter the PCs sphere. I suppose if there is no known way to get to the moon then even I don't detail the inhabitants of the moon. So it's true. There is no real disagreement. I just feel it's redundant.

 

[Fenris-77]

As the gamist term is used he is right by definition. Now you can argue that you feel like the world is real using other methods but the gamist term developed as a reaction to campaigns that felt neither real nor immersive back when everyone was essentially using the same style. Some were just doing it poorly.

You're conflating living world and the idea of gamist play, they aren't synonymous at all. Living world isn't an idea that's limited to one kind of game or even one style of game. The amount of prep needed for game A depends far more on the GM than it does the style of game in question.

 

[Emerikol]

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 suppose if a GM detailed his entire world out at the sandbox level and had hundreds of assistants helping he that it would not invalidate the design as a living world. As for the second bullet, I suppose if a GM in error created something that was impossible for a group to experience it wouldn't invalidate the rest of the design. Otherwise it's a pretty practical definition of what I'd call a living world.