What is the point of GM's notes?

[Fenris-77]

Sure, but the term "living world" was being used to describe a specific approach of heavy prep and the GM conceiving of things that occur independent of the PCs. I was pushing back against using "world in motion" as a sub for "living world" as a sub for this approach -- these phrases accurately describe a number of approaches that generate the same 'feel' in play. Which is what you're saying. I'm just trying to point out that chain of responses, such that your initial response seemed to be offering a new term to describe the heavy prep approach rather than the feel. I don't see much daylight between us, here.

I was suggesting world in motion so as to escape the gravity of the baggage that accompanies "living world" while still describing the player facing feeling of verisimilitude in terms of things happening. A phrase that can describe not just that specific prep heavy approach, but also the other methods of achieving that same feeling.

Edit: Perhaps a different phrase that's linguistically further separated from living world might be better...

 

[Maxperson]

I don't agree with your description, here, of character viewpoint. Having all my character's cognitive access to his/her life, his/her knowledge, his/her world mediated via GM description is radically non-immersive. Just to give a really clear example: my PC is in his/her home town. The GM narrates a NPC. If I have to ask the GM things like Do I know this person? Do I love this person? Did we part on good or bad terms last time we met? that is not immersive to me. It actually creates a radical dissociation from the fiction, and makes me feel like my PC is a space alien or visitor from another world.

I missed this, but it strikes me again as having a fundamental lack of understanding of how to play our playstyle.

Would you know that person? Depends. If you are from a city like Waterdeep where the population is about 1.35 million people, it's highly unlikely that you will know any given person, but if it doesn't matter, like if it's some storekeeper or something, you can tell me. I'll trust you not to abuse it and tell me that you know everyone you run into. If you are from a village of 400, then you do know that person. Everyone knows everyone in places that small. A place in-between like a city of 100k, then maybe. You'll get a roll. Do you love that person? Why the hell are you asking me? It's your character and this is a background issue. If you know the person, then you tell me whether you are in love with that person or not. Same with the terms you left on.

As far as I'm concerned, this is just filling in your background kind of stuff and you get to do that as you see fit. Again, I trust my players not to abuse this.

 

[Emerikol]

So, to get back to authoring, in A, the players are still authoring into the fiction the actions their PCs are taking. This is the hard limit, though, as the result of those actions is entirely up to the GM to author. In B, however, the very act of declaring the action also defines part of the solution space. So, the player is still authoring the action of their PC searching for a secret door, but also adding the potential that a secret door exists. On a success, the fact that a secret door exists can be said to be because the player authored that bit of fiction, even though it was mediated through the mechanics of the game.

So I think the terms again led us into some confusion. I was thinking authoring fiction was akin to author stance vs actor stance. If you just meant contribute to the story then of course every single rpg game in the universe has players doing that in some manner.

So my take on authoring fiction was that you the player, not the GM, was bringing something or at least the possibility of something into existence that the GM would be unaware of prior to the start of the session. Which is how you illustrated your B approach. So whatever you want to call that? Most of my prior comments were addressed to that way of viewing authoring the fiction. The word authoring is loaded unfortunately so I didn't read things as you intended.

 

[Emerikol]

I was suggesting world in motion so as to escape the gravity of the baggage that accompanies "living world" while still describing the player facing feeling of verisimilitude in terms of things happening. A phrase that can describe not just that specific prep heavy approach, but also the other methods of achieving that same feeling.

Edit: Perhaps a different phrase that's linguistically further separated from living world might be better...

One issue I have with calling everything a living world is that if nothing happens without the PCs being present then it's not a living world as I define it. A living world is one that changes and continues whatever the PCs do even if they just fall into a sleep for ten years. When they wake up the world will be different. It's the fact that NPCs have agendas that may or may not cross paths with the PCs anyway.

Here is an example. I might have noted that a young girl is in love with a young boy in the village. I might have noted that her father is domineering and mean spirited and won't let them see each other. They try to see each other anyway. So that might be the starting situation in this village. The PCs could discover this information but they may never discover it if they don't look that way. I still have on my calendar the fact that the father beats the boy several weeks later and perhaps a week later both of them run away. In the meantime I have some notes where they might meet.

Is it possible the PCs could get involved? Maybe. Maybe it is just local color. Maybe for a few days after they run away it's local gossip in some places. Could the PCs agree to find the girl and bring her back for a fee? Could they aid the getaway? They could do all sorts of things. Most of the time they will not interact with these events at all. They are still events. So when I say the world is a living breathing world, that is what I mean. Things happen outside the purview of the characters.

Let's liken this to writing. Writers want you to feel like their world is real. Writers though generally don't spend a lot of time writing about things unrelated to the main characters. They do occasionally but this sort of example I gave likely doesn't get on a page unless the main character(s) absolutely will interact. But there are other things a writer does, providing all sorts of little details, that something happened in the background. So the gossip about the girl running away very much might make it into a story. When writing you generally just show the effects of off camera action but off camera action is important to deeping the story and creating verisimilitude.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So I think the terms again led us into some confusion. I was thinking authoring fiction was akin to author stance vs actor stance. If you just meant contribute to the story then of course every single rpg game in the universe has players doing that in some manner.

So my take on authoring fiction was that you the player, not the GM, was bringing something or at least the possibility of something into existence that the GM would be unaware of prior to the start of the session. Which is how you illustrated your B approach. So whatever you want to call that? Most of my prior comments were addressed to that way of viewing authoring the fiction. The word authoring is loaded unfortunately so I didn't read things as you intended.

But, what's the difference? The secret door being there or not is still authored into the fiction by one of the game's participants. What's the functional difference in who does it?

My answers: the difference is in preference and play priorities. If the GM is authoring everything, and presenting it as a puzzle to the players to pick up on and make smart decisions, then this is a fine way to play. It's different from an approach that looks at the fiction as something to discover in play. However, this said, that actual functional difference is only in who gets to say what, and that's a very interesting way to look at games -- it's not about creating a believable world, as both approaches I've discussed do this, but rather about who builds that world and how. These are important discussions and differences, they generate different kinds of experiences, but it's not about creating a believable world at all, and the sooner we move past this as a conceit, the sooner productive discussion about approaches occur.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, since I wasn't advocating for calling everything a living world we ought to be alright, shouldn't we?

 

[Ovinomancer]

One issue I have with calling everything a living world is that if nothing happens without the PCs being present then it's not a living world as I define it. A living world is one that changes and continues whatever the PCs do even if they just fall into a sleep for ten years. When they wake up the world will be different. It's the fact that NPCs have agendas that may or may not cross paths with the PCs anyway.

Here is an example. I might have noted that a young girl is in love with a young boy in the village. I might have noted that her father is domineering and mean spirited and won't let them see each other. They try to see each other anyway. So that might be the starting situation in this village. The PCs could discover this information but they may never discover it if they don't look that way. I still have on my calendar the fact that the father beats the boy several weeks later and perhaps a week later both of them run away. In the meantime I have some notes where they might meet.

Is it possible the PCs could get involved? Maybe. Maybe it is just local color. Maybe for a few days after they run away it's local gossip in some places. Could the PCs agree to find the girl and bring her back for a fee? Could they aid the getaway? They could do all sorts of things. Most of the time they will not interact with these events at all. They are still events. So when I say the world is a living breathing world, that is what I mean. Things happen outside the purview of the characters.

Let's liken this to writing. Writers want you to feel like their world is real. Writers though generally don't spend a lot of time writing about things unrelated to the main characters. They do occasionally but this sort of example I gave likely doesn't get on a page unless the main character(s) absolutely will interact. But there are other things a writer does, providing all sorts of little details, that something happened in the background. So the gossip about the girl running away very much might make it into a story. When writing you generally just show the effects of off camera action but off camera action is important to deeping the story and creating verisimilitude.

I'm going to be blunt -- so what? If the players never engage this fiction, it doesn't make the world feel more "living" for them at all. If the goal is to present a living world, this example fails in that regard.

If the players encounter this, then there's nothing that prevents a similar feeling if this fiction is generated in play. This example absolutely feels like something that might easily come up in a Dogs in the Vineyard game, for instance, introduced in play as a reaction to something the PCs do.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'll be honest. I really could live without the 'living breathing world' framing. It just feels like a flex to me. I think we can talk about reactive sandboxes without using loaded language that implies consistency, a sense of permanence, and the setting feeling tangible are not features or priorities for other ways of playing roleplaying games. It's also not very descriptive of the process of play - only of how most of want it to feel in play. Including a lot of us who favor different approaches.

For me this is a very important term, but it isn't universally used by all sandbox or all old school GMs. In fact most people use terms like world in motion. I do not see 'living world' as flex, I see it as an underlying philosophy where the NPCs have will and use that will, and where groups, monsters, etc all have a kind of will and are effectively living. It isn't meant to be a statement that you are literally bringing a world to life or anything, but it is a powerful metaphor for understanding the concept. For me this is simply the term I adopted based off the GM advice in Feast of Goblyns i posted earlier. Where they describe the concept of a major wandering encounter, then go into greater detail basically describing what I am describing (if in a slightly more limited scope). In that description it ends with "--they live!". That really resonated with me when I read it, and I started running my games like that (well before I was doing sandbox). At the time I always called them "living adventures" when I started running sandboxes, I applied the term there. Other people used the term independently, possibly meaning something slightly different from how I conceived of it. But this is a term I've been using for a long time, and one that I can't see myself relinquishing because I find it useful. That said, I don't expect other people to adopt it. I realize my concept of sandbox play and of the living adventure may be slightly outside what others mean by the terms.

 

[Emerikol]

But, what's the difference? The secret door being there or not is still authored into the fiction by one of the game's participants. What's the functional difference in who does it?

There is a massive difference. The GM is not a player in the typical sense. He is a special player with a special job. This enables the other players, those running characters, to do so from a pure actor stance. Meaning they do what their characters can do and this is deeply satisfying for some people. It feels more real and more immersive.

My answers: the difference is in preference and play priorities. If the GM is authoring everything, and presenting it as a puzzle to the players to pick up on and make smart decisions, then this is a fine way to play. It's different from an approach that looks at the fiction as something to discover in play. However, this said, that actual functional difference is only in who gets to say what, and that's a very interesting way to look at games -- it's not about creating a believable world, as both approaches I've discussed do this, but rather about who builds that world and how. These are important discussions and differences, they generate different kinds of experiences, but it's not about creating a believable world at all, and the sooner we move past this as a conceit, the sooner productive discussion about approaches occur.

And while in theory, I don't dispute it's possible for everyone to be authors in a roleplaying game and it be believable, I don't feel that it is that way in practice. At least not to me which is why I use the language I do. If I know as a PC that I'm creating something that is not there yet, I am pushed out of my character viewpoint. You may not be but I am.

It's very much like five authors saying they are going to write a novel together. It's possible it would be a great novel but the likelihood is low. Passing the creative wand if you will from hand to hand will lead to inconsistencies and shallowness in my opinion. Because creating things on the fly for even one person is hard to do well. The GM is not creating things on the fly or at least not very much at all. He is spending time in advance and he can revise as he goes. I don't know how many times I've revisited my map and revised it or moved a city before the game starts. I don't think I could do it as one person let alone five people most of whom aren't nearly as committed to the game as I am.

Now having said that, I am happy if it works for you and I am not denying your experience. You should not deny mine. I think you will find a lot of people that use the exact same language because for them it is true as well. A world created on the fly is just not possibly as good a world as one done in advance. We are mortals.

So take this to heart. I am not trying to offend you and I am very much doing my best not to interpret what you say as you trying to offend me. When you deny my own experience of a game though, you really should just speak for yourself. When I say something is immersive or shallow, I am speaking for myself. I am happy the hobby is broad and people engage in all sorts of ways. I am fascinated by some of the rules systems you guys develop. I just don't have the time or commitment to play that way for long.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm going to be blunt -- so what? If the players never engage this fiction, it doesn't make the world feel more "living" for them at all. If the goal is to present a living world, this example fails in that regard.

If the players encounter this, then there's nothing that prevents a similar feeling if this fiction is generated in play. This example absolutely feels like something that might easily come up in a Dogs in the Vineyard game, for instance, introduced in play as a reaction to something the PCs do.

Fine, that is your take but I've clarified what I mean by a living world. If you read @Bedrockgames above, he has the same take. It has value to me and my players. YMMV.