What is the point of GM's notes?

[TwoSix]

I was unaware there were systems where the DM couldn't simply say the Duke was gone on a trip because that's what their preconceptions/notes said. Any two systems that would allow that but give different answers would be greatly appreciated.

What systems/games have you played in the past? That would give me a reference to think of something similar to what you've played that uses such mechanics.

 

[Cadence]

What systems/games have you played in the past? That would give me a reference to think of something similar to what you've played that uses such mechanics.

All the D&D versions (and Gamma World 1e and Pathfinder 1e). VtM 2e and related WoD games. Thirteenth Age. And just a bit of Brave New World, Call of Cthulhu, Fate, MSHRPG, Shadowrun, Star Wars, Traveller, Twilight 2000, & Villains and Vigilantes.

 

[Manbearcat]

This makes it sound like the players are secondary to the "model run." when it's the complete opposite. The players and their goals are primary.

I would say three things about this:

1) It’s a continuum. You can have a Sandbox driven exclusively by player volition (let’s call this A...more on this below in 3), exclusively by extra-player volition (this is a Railroad...let’s call this Z), and everywhere in between (this is Setting Solitaire that is perturbed by player input of a factor B through Y).

2) “Players being secondary” (as you put it) here would be to the right of M (the median point of the alphabet-as-continuum), more toward Railroad. So that leaves a hell of a lot of room left of M (closer to A).

3) A in this arrangement would be fully Protagonistic Play where the Sandbox is constructed entirely around Player Input and PC Dramatic Need.

For instance:

The Dungeon World Sandbox in my game with @darkbard and his wife would be an A. 100 % No Myth setting where everything in that setting is a byproduct of Player Input and PC Dramatic Need.

My Blades game with @hawkeyefan and @Fenris-77 is probably around a B or even C with certain elements in the game being driven by a high res (but modified to our requirements and constantly being modified during play to our needs) pregenerated setting and related machinery that is required to address the premise of the game.

That doesn’t make the Dungeon World game better than the Blades game. They’re both awesome. They’re just slightly different.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How does one create a "living world" and what is the feedback loop interaction between player and GM, which can make facilitating such a world possible in a way that is distinct from games that operate with different feedback loops and play processes?

I can address the rest in more depth when I have more time, but I think this is a fundamental point of dispute: I think most GMs in sandbox play, and most players have a more open and fluid idea of the interaction that leads to a sense of a living world. We don't tend to embrace this concept of loops (some GMs will talk about the game being an exchange where the payers say what they want to do and the GM responds, but it is always elaborated on in much greater detail. Also I don't think most sandbox players or GMs are as worried about the GM as filter issue. We also probably see it as a two way street of communication. And one thing you also encounter is more comfort with people imagining things differently. There may be some fundamentals you want to nail down and be on the same page for (i.e. the doorway is four feet wide) but we aren't as worried about accidental qualities being different (even a few essential ones being different----unless until something requires them to be clarified).

 

[Bedrockgames]

* Maybe it's worth exploring/reading how Bedrock Games' own publications describe play, since presumably they are meant to be conducive to typical sandbox play, though I am not sure where to begin searching for the most lucid explanation.

It really depends on the game. Some of my games are focused on building mysteries, not pure sandboxes. One is focused on producing a ripped from the headlines style of play with story elements (Terror Network: think 24 but a little more grounded). Another is focused on character driven adventures with lots of conflict between the players (Crime Network: think Goodfellas and Donnie Brasco). Another is just a horror emulation game that doesn't attempt to advance one particular style of play (Horror Show). Another is an alternative history setting focused on mysteries, monster hunts and politics, where the players are servants of Caligula helping him wage a war against Neptune (Servants of Gaius). More recently Sertorius is a game about characters who are 'demi-god spell casters', and largely it is about leaning into what happens when player characters have that kind of power, start gaining followers (Sertorius). My wuxia/Martial Arts Fantasy game, Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate* is probably the closest to getting the kind of play I talk about here. However there was some evolution of thought over the course of the line. But that is the book where you see things like grudge tables, drama sandbox, etc. My game strange tales is specifically for one shots, not sandboxes, but monster of the week style adventures. Also should mention I am not the only hand in making these games, they all have co-designers.

*This one is free and the relevant advice begins on page 406 through to about 425

 

[TwoSix]

I would say three things about this:

1) It’s a continuum. You can have a Sandbox driven exclusively by player volition (let’s call this A...more on this below in 3), exclusively by extra-player volition (this is a Railroad...let’s call this Z), and everywhere in between (this is Setting Solitaire that is perturbed by player input of a factor B through Y).

2) “Players being secondary” (as you put it) here would be to the right of M (the median point of the alphabet-as-continuum), more toward Railroad. So that leaves a hell of a lot of room left of M (closer to A).

3) A in this arrangement would be fully Protagonistic Play where the Sandbox is constructed entirely around Player Input and PC Dramatic Need.

I now want to rank systems and play styles on this A..Z scale.

 

[Manbearcat]

I now want to rank systems and play styles on this A..Z scale.

Sounds to me like the games you like are AZ.

 

[innerdude]

it isn’t a category error and calling it fiction missed the point of play in this style. Look, I can imagine a small town in my head with residents, a layout and geography. This place exists in my mind external to the players. And the players can explore it in the game. The point of contact is what I and others are calling the energy, the synergy. You seem to be using a term to invoke that and the town in question (ie you are folding the world into the fiction). But these can be two distinct things: one the shared experience the group has as they play in the town together, the other the mental model of the town in the GM’s mind.

No one is saying it is a thing in the real world. What people are saying is you can map out a world, run a world, so it exists outside the players as an idea that is explorable. It is not unlike the notion of exploring a setting made for a video game, with the additional element that the human GM is there to add an additional layer of flexibility (i.e. the game might not be programed to allow for it, but a GM can help facilitate what happens when you try to pick up the rock by the bridge or kill the shop keeper).

The issue is, even if I accept that the "living world" conception can exist as an idea outside of the "shared fiction taking place at the table," it's only explorable by the GM. Which is lovely for the GM, to explore the wonderful conception of the world they've created inside their own head. And lest you think I'm being overly critical, I've done it myself, dozens and dozens of times. It is a lovely experience to spend time inside my own headspace, imagining and dreaming of this fictional place I've generated.

But the players don't get to explore that conception. They only get to explore the game fiction happening at the table in front of them. The sole, single, and ONLY avenue the players have for exploration is through the parsed-down version of the ur-"living world" being given to them through the GM.

I understand what you're trying to do with the video game analogy. You're trying to separate, for example, the actual in-game play of Skyrim---the things players see and do and interact with---from the source code that powers the game.

Player stuff = "the fiction at the table,"; source code = "The GM's conception of the living world". And on a certain level, I can kind-of, sort-of see the the connection.

But isn't it also fascinating that Skyrim is hands-down the game that has been modded more than any other game in the history of video gaming. And why is that?

Because the players want to experience things that its original designers never thought of in the first place.

To take the software analogy further, the point of agile software development in today's world is avoid having to do huge, monolithic source code builds and then "waterfall" them down. The goal is to build a minimum viable product, get acceptance from the users, and then iterate from there. Which, oddly enough, is pretty much exactly how Ironsworn and Dungeon World prioritize world-building.

For me, I finally just realized that the conceit of the "living world" is fraught with peril for RPG play. As @Aldarc noted, there's a mysticism, or a romanticizing about the concept that too often gets abused by GMs the world over to create sub-par gaming experiences.

And when I use the word conceit in reference to the notion of a "living world," it is very much intentional. I've spent a great deal of time analyzing my own experiences as a GM trying to run a "living world" campaign (which I've done six or seven times now).

In those analyses, I realized that if I was being 100% completely honest, that there is a level of conceit involved. There's an inherent hubris---perhaps mild, and ultimately harmless, but hubris nonetheless---in believing that my conception of the game world is so amazing and precious and special that it's worth being explored on its own merit.

And I know you've said that you don't really feel your world is all that "precious" to you; that you try to downplay and curb that instinct.

But isn't it still there? Just a little?

And in doing those same analyses, if I was likewise being 100% honest, the things the players cared most about were the things they actually interacted with themselves, not the "hidden backstory" or "living world" elements.

Player engagement happened when they had something to care about within the shared fiction. And yes, creating a massive "living world" construct prior to play certainly gives players lots of potential things to care about. But it also gives fuel to the GM to railroad or override things the players care about. Or maybe the GM picks the wrong things. Or maybe the players don't really know what it is they want---they change their minds 1/3 of the way through the campaign, and now everything from Session Zero is now null and void.

If this is insufficient for what you were seeking, fair enough. I am a little perplexed though that an argument or a syllogism would entirely change how you experience the game. That just isn't how I think at all. Do I like this game? Yes or no. Do I feel like I am exploring a world external to myself? Yes or no. That is all I really care about. The GM's job here is to create the sense of a real world, not to create an actual world. But it is an approximation that can really feel real, and the GM can cultivate it as an external in his or her imagination (which is external to the players). I think when you keep describing it as 'the fiction' you miss on this aspect of exploring what is in the GM's head and what they understand about the world, as well as the interplay between that and the PCs: and the energy that flows from that. Now if that is too wishy washy, too mystically phrased for you. By all means, go play another game. Some of us take a somewhat mystic view to conceptualizing how gaming works and it totally works for us. To me it isn't particularly important if you accept these worlds as real or not

The point of the syllogism was that I was being dishonest with myself about how I was prioritizing the prefabricated "living world" elements. If everything is a construct---even the "living world"---then what matters is what is considered true within the shared fiction. And why were my prefabricated "living world" elements receiving privileged status as in-fiction "truth"? Only because the natural asssumption is that it's the GM's call to say so in the first place.

And if I was truly interested in the enjoyment of my players, that I had to be willing to let go of that conceit.

 

[TwoSix]

Sounds to me like the games you like are AZ.

There's a lot of games from Arizona?

 

[Bedrockgames]

The issue is, even if I accept that the "living world" conception can exist as an idea outside of the "shared fiction taking place at the table," it's only explorable by the GM. Which is lovely for the GM, to explore the wonderful conception of the world they've created inside their own head. And lest you think I'm being overly critical, I've done it myself, dozens and dozens of times. It is a lovely experience to spend time inside my own headspace, imagining and dreaming of this fictional place I've generated.

I guess this is just where we disagree. I can conceive of something in my head and ask people to explore it (whether that be a place, an idea, etc). Imagine a house, populate that house with people and let the players explore it. Yes in order to gain access players have to talk or communicate with the GM. That is not something you can really get around. But I don't think all that stuff is trapped in your own head. Will the players perfectly see what the GM has in mind? No, of course not. But that lack of attainable perfection doesn't mean there is a spectrum here. A lot like fairness it is something worth striving for. When the rubber hits the road with this style, for me it works well enough. If you are chasing perfection though, you probably won't find it here or anywhere. There is a big, big difference between imagining a world in your own headspace, versus imagining a world in your own headspace and sitting with a group of players and having a conversation where they can explore it.