What is the point of GM's notes?

[Manbearcat]

It's not Setting Solitaire, because it's possible for the players to interact with every last thing you do. It would only be Solitaire if the DM were the only one who could interact with that stuff. It's intended that the things that continue to happen in the world be able to be interacted with by the players. Whether that's through rumor alone, or more directly. However, it's possible that the PCs go a different way or due to their actions they never encounter it. That's okay. The possibility that the players don't encounter some of the stuff that goes on in the world doesn't make it setting solitaire, though.

If your system makes it unlikely for it to ever be encountered by the PCs, then it's not a tool to use with that system.

You missed a key element of what I said above so I'll clarify:

Everything the PCs have not interacted with effectively doesn't exist. It is entirely off-line/offscreen. In the game above that would be (a) all of the wards of Duskvol that haven't been interacted with (there are 12 total...only 3 have seen play directly, 1 other indirectly, and perhaps another merely through conversation) and (b) about 80 % of the Factions.

There are (effectively) starting conditions for each ward and Faction.

We're in Session 5.

Why can I not keep all of (a) and (b) effectively in a form of stasis and, when they are interacted with, just deploy them at their starting conditions when the PCs interact with them?

For instance:

They go to Nightmarket (they haven't been there yet) in the Free Play/Information Gathering phase of talk to a psychonaut who is one of their contacts in order to get some intel on The Crows. In the process, they get involved with The Wraiths (a gang of secretive and daring thiefs) and end up in a counteroperation to prevent a theft of a famous painting so they can steal it themselves (by creating a counterfeit and replacing the painting during the night of the art auction). In the process, things go wonky and the Leech's grenade of Ghostmist goes off in the auditorium...catching a huge number of the upper crust of society.

Now I have on-line:

• Nightmarket
• The Wraiths
• Upper Crust Gets Ghostmisted

I'll start a Faction Clock with The Wraiths after this.

I'll make a Fortune Role for Upper Crust Gets Ghostmisted to determine the fallout.

If the Fallout is particularly bad, I'll do either a Nightmarket, The Inspectors (for the investigation), Dimmer Sisters (they're interested in the arcane/Ghost Field), or Nobility Clock during Downtime for a problem that the PCs would need to resolve or x thing happens.

But none of that tells me why do I need to evolve Nightmarket, The Wraiths, or The Inspectors beyond their initial conditions in the game text when none of that stuff has come "on-line" yet?

That bolded is the question and what I'm asserting is the evolution of that off-line stuff is Setting Solitaire.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yeah. I saw the questions you posed, but I'm going to respond to this--and maybe that'll answer them indirectly.

I do the setting stuff because I enjoy it, yes--in addition to the fact that the tables I'm DMing are playing 5E which at least mostly assigns that to the DM (if you're not running published adventures, which I dislike intensely and an incapable of running well). All of that aside from my bad experiences with more-collaborative world-building--which, while they've shaped my preferences are not proof of anything other than that approach doesn't work for me.

If I've prepped stuff in a place, and the PCs go there, I'll use it more or less as it's written. If they go somewhere else first, there's a good chance they'll need (both dramatically and ... I dunno, not? other needs they might have?) different things than I originally prepared. So, I'll prepare different things--which might be evolutions of what I have, because they're a starting point; or they might not.

If it's a place the PCs are going back to, I am--again--almost certainly going to prep changes to that place. Part of that is that places don't stay the same (so, verisimilitude, I guess) and part of that is that--again--the PCs will have different needs than they had before.

It doesn't feel from inside my head as though I'm changing things around in the setting just to do it, or to have things happen offscreen, or to scratch any itch I have. I do, sometimes, have ideas that get ... parked, I guess, and when I deploy setting stuff (either writing stuff from scratch or changing it) there is some amount of making sure it fits with what has gone before.

So to make sure we all understand. This isn't a question of collaberative world-building. This is about turning content on-line and evolving it from its starting conditions. We cross-posted a bit so this was before my clarification. So, to be as concise as possible your answer to the question of...

"Why do I need to put content (locations/factions/situations) on-line and then evolve that stuff from its starting conditions when it hasn't been interacted with to come on-line/on-screen?"

...is?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah. I saw the questions you posed, but I'm going to respond to this--and maybe that'll answer them indirectly.

I do the setting stuff because I enjoy it, yes--in addition to the fact that the tables I'm DMing are playing 5E which at least mostly assigns that to the DM (if you're not running published adventures, which I dislike intensely and an incapable of running well). All of that aside from my bad experiences with more-collaborative world-building--which, while they've shaped my preferences are not proof of anything other than that approach doesn't work for me.

If I've prepped stuff in a place, and the PCs go there, I'll use it more or less as it's written. If they go somewhere else first, there's a good chance they'll need (both dramatically and ... I dunno, not? other needs they might have?) different things than I originally prepared. So, I'll prepare different things--which might be evolutions of what I have, because they're a starting point; or they might not.

If it's a place the PCs are going back to, I am--again--almost certainly going to prep changes to that place. Part of that is that places don't stay the same (so, verisimilitude, I guess) and part of that is that--again--the PCs will have different needs than they had before.

It doesn't feel from inside my head as though I'm changing things around in the setting just to do it, or to have things happen offscreen, or to scratch any itch I have. I do, sometimes, have ideas that get ... parked, I guess, and when I deploy setting stuff (either writing stuff from scratch or changing it) there is some amount of making sure it fits with what has gone before.

I think, perhaps, you're speaking to something different. In Blades, there's already setting material for the various neighborhoods, albeit thumbnail, and similar thumbnails for the factions. It's not a matter of nothing being there to be interacted with. If you go to Seven Towers, for instance, I know that's it's both Haunted and the Grey Cloaks set up shop there. What @Manbearcat is getting at is if these things are doing stuff alongside the play at the table -- are the Grey Cloaks doing something that you update even though the play isn't going to Seven Towers or engaging the Grey Cloaks? This is the offscreen stuff MBC is talking about, not necessarily setting details -- it's the idea that you're updating offscreen situations even though they've never engaged the table. You seem to be more talking to prepping an area by filling in the setting details there, which is not quite the same thing MBC is getting at.

EDIT: and I see MBC beat me to it. 'S'what I get for not updating my browser before hitting reply.

 

[prabe]

So to make sure we all understand. This isn't a question of collaberative world-building. This is about turning content on-line and evolving it from its starting conditions. We cross-posted a bit so this was before my clarification. So, to be as concise as possible your answer to the question of...

"Why do I need to put content (locations/factions/situations) on-line and then evolve that stuff from its starting conditions when it hasn't been interacted with to come on-line/on-screen?"

...is?

If it's something I've prepped, and they're getting to it well after I prepped it, then I'm changing things mostly because the PCs have different needs than they did when I originally prepped [place]. If this is a place they're returning to (not included in your original question, but still feels vaguely applicable) there are helpings of verisimilitude and not-stagnation, too.

EDIT: And I prepped it the first time because I thought the chances the PCs would go there made it worth doing.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think, perhaps, you're speaking to something different. In Blades, there's already setting material for the various neighborhoods, albeit thumbnail, and similar thumbnails for the factions. It's not a matter of nothing being there to be interacted with. If you go to Seven Towers, for instance, I know that's it's both Haunted and the Grey Cloaks set up shop there. What @Manbearcat is getting at is if these things are doing stuff alongside the play at the table -- are the Grey Cloaks doing something that you update even though the play isn't going to Seven Towers or engaging the Grey Cloaks? This is the offscreen stuff MBC is talking about, not necessarily setting details -- it's the idea that you're updating offscreen situations even though they've never engaged the table. You seem to be more talking to prepping an area by filling in the setting details there, which is not quite the same thing MBC is getting at.

EDIT: and I see MBC beat me to it. 'S'what I get for not updating my browser before hitting reply.

That is exactly what I'm getting at.

Why does a GM need to turn off-line/off-screen content on-line and evolve it during the intervening period (whatever that may be) when the PCs haven't interacted with it? Why not just turn it on-line once it is actually on-screen (meaning the PCs are interacting with it) and evolve it as necessary then?

In my mind, turning off-line content on-line and evolving it before it has been interacted with is the fundamental essence of "Setting Solitaire."

 

[Bedrockgames]

You missed a key element of what I said above so I'll clarify:


But none of that tells me why do I need to evolve Nightmarket, The Wraiths, or The Inspectors beyond their initial conditions in the game text when none of that stuff has come "on-line" yet?

That bolded is the question and what I'm asserting is the evolution of that off-line stuff is Setting Solitaire.

'Well in a living world you can do as much or as little as you want away from the characters, every GM is going to have to find the right balance in terms of tracking these things. But I think this highlights where the Feast of Goblyns section becomes quite relevant because that is specifically getting at the idea of the NPCs not simply being in a room waiting for the PCs to show up. I am not saying that is what you are doing in the BitD example, but it is a kind of similar thing where stuff is only happening around the PCs, and if it is only coming online when the PCs become involved with them or show up, it is more like a dungeon where monsters wait for the PCs in a room, or a video game where the challenge is sitting there waiting for them. But the point of running things off screen, isn't to simulate a world the players will never encounter. These things can always become relevant to the party at any point, and when they do, if the players prod at them enough, it is easy for players to sense whether they were held in stasis or things were evolving. As an example you read the paper or the news most likely, even though aren't likely to be hired by the president to go on an adventure or spend any time in the white house (the specific s here obviously may vary from country to country among posters). But you are aware of news far away because it still has local impact. So a simple change in policy in the imperial capital about how the empire will be managing bandits could very easily have a direct impact on the players. Who is on the throne can have an impact. And if the players go to the capital and start talking to the palace Eunuch and ask him what has been going on in the city for the last three years, the players will probably have a good idea if your response sounds like you hadn't tracked any of those details. I am not saying you must track the events of every city in a living world (or that you have to track events in the capital). I am saying when you do, and when you are able to do that, it adds to the campaign, and will likely eventually have some significance to the players (they may not bump into all these details, but some of them will be important). Generally my approach here is to take a very simplified approach (a monthly events table). Having used it, I can assure you it isn't setting solitaire. Things do come up the players never find out about, but other things are surprisingly relevant to the players, inform future adventures and scenarios, and can also become hooks for the party to use as they seek avenues to explore in the campaigns. In a living world the players are supposed to be driving the campaign through the direction the party and the characters choose to go. That is going to mean a lot of unexpected questions around news and rumors as they try to find something that seems worth their time (i.e. what criminal groups are operating in the city and who is the strongest, etc). Any of those questions can be answered with something in stasis, and sometimes out of convenience a living world will answer that sort of question in stasis. But the idea is, once the session begins, the world moves, once the campaign begins the world moves. You don't have to perfectly handle it though. And it may just be a matter of every couple of weeks thinking about major developments in different places in order to provide a senses of a world. Again I don't think this is a requirement of living world. The most important requirement is the NPCs interacting with the players be treated as alive. But the more you can expand outward, the more helpful it can as long as it isn't taking away from other important aspects of the game.

 

[Manbearcat]

If it's something I've prepped, and they're getting to it well after I prepped it, then I'm changing things mostly because the PCs have different needs than they did when I originally prepped [place].

Ok, this is a statement of Protagonistic Play. This is not Setting Solitaire.

If this is a place they're returning to (not included in your original question, but still feels vaguely applicable) there are helpings of verisimilitude and not-stagnation, too.

EDIT: And I prepped it the first time because I thought the chances the PCs would go there made it worth doing.

This is not related to my question above but all of that content that I've posted above (the Setting Clocks and the Faction Clocks) address exactly this (but I would say that Protagonistic Play and Skilled Play are the apex play priorities for Blades when it comes to this...with "not-stagnation" and "immersion" being an inevitable knock-on effect; 1st order and 2nd order).

 

[prabe]

Ok, this is a statement of Protagonistic Play. This is not Setting Solitaire.

Yeah. I didn't think it was what you've been describing as "Setting Solitaire." I guess I'm thinking it's something I'm doing in 5E--a game some (maybe you) seem to think incapable of supporting Protagonistic Play.

 

[Manbearcat]

'Well in a living world you can do as much or as little as you want away from the characters, every GM is going to have to find the right balance in terms of tracking these things. But I think this highlights where the Feast of Goblyns section becomes quite relevant because that is specifically getting at the idea of the NPCs not simply being in a room waiting for the PCs to show up. I am not saying that is what you are doing in the BitD example, but it is a kind of similar thing where stuff is only happening around the PCs, and if it is only coming online when the PCs become involved with them or show up, it is more like a dungeon where monsters wait for the PCs in a room, or a video game where the challenge is sitting there waiting for them. But the point of running things off screen, isn't to simulate a world the players will never encounter. These things can always become relevant to the party at any point, and when they do, if the players prod at them enough, it is easy for players to sense whether they were held in stasis or things were evolving. As an example you read the paper or the news most likely, even though aren't likely to be hired by the president to go on an adventure or spend any time in the white house (the specific s here obviously may vary from country to country among posters). But you are aware of news far away because it still has local impact. So a simple change in policy in the imperial capital about how the empire will be managing bandits could very easily have a direct impact on the players. Who is on the throne can have an impact. And if the players go to the capital and start talking to the palace Eunuch and ask him what has been going on in the city for the last three years, the players will probably have a good idea if your response sounds like you hadn't tracked any of those details. I am not saying you must track the events of every city in a living world (or that you have to track events in the capital). I am saying when you do, and when you are able to do that, it adds to the campaign, and will likely eventually have some significance to the players (they may not bump into all these details, but some of them will be important). Generally my approach here is to take a very simplified approach (a monthly events table). Having used it, I can assure you it isn't setting solitaire. Things do come up the players never find out about, but other things are surprisingly relevant to the players, inform future adventures and scenarios, and can also become hooks for the party to use as they seek avenues to explore in the campaigns. In a living world the players are supposed to be driving the campaign through the direction the party and the characters choose to go. That is going to mean a lot of unexpected questions around news and rumors as they try to find something that seems worth their time (i.e. what criminal groups are operating in the city and who is the strongest, etc). Any of those questions can be answered with something in stasis, and sometimes out of convenience a living world will answer that sort of question in stasis. But the idea is, once the session begins, the world moves, once the campaign begins the world moves. You don't have to perfectly handle it though. And it may just be a matter of every couple of weeks thinking about major developments in different places in order to provide a senses of a world. Again I don't think this is a requirement of living world. The most important requirement is the NPCs interacting with the players be treated as alive. But the more you can expand outward, the more helpful it can as long as it isn't taking away from other important aspects of the game.

Ok, this is an interesting answer, but I think it doesn't exactly engage with what I'm saying. I know precisely what you're getting at with the above, but I feel like "waiting in a room for team PC to arrive" is just a matter of deftness of GM framing.

For instance:

I have a dungeon with goblins. It is generaically themed (eg its not "Cooking the Caraveners"); "Goblins in the ruin!" Its basically an unthemed, off-line dungeon that is only coming on-line right now because the PCs are interacting with it. I have it mapped, keyed, stocked and ready for play.

I have an opening situation in room 1. I have a situation in 5 of the 20 rooms (every 4 rooms) with the Wandering Monster Clock handling the dynamic content generation. Even if they heard about this dungeon multiple weeks prior Why would I need to change the opening situation in room 1, even if the PCs heard about the Goblin in the Ruins (!) dungeon x days/weeks ago, when the dungeon is only now coming on-line?

Rooms 2 through 20 may have dynamic interaction because the dungeon has come online and perhaps the results of stock encounters or Wandering Monsters changes the situation of subsequent rooms (this would be the Setting/Faction Clocks I posted upthread - these came on-line after PC interaction).

But why do I need to change the opening situation to the prior off-line, now on-line content? Why does the framing need to be evolved (and something like, "well because offscreen/off-line thing y or z occurred" is not responsive to the question...that is just a statement akin to "well, because Setting Solitaire"...which is fine...but then "why Setting Solitaire?").

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ok, this is an interesting answer, but I think it doesn't exactly engage with what I'm saying. I know precisely what you're getting at with the above, but I feel like "waiting in a room for team PC to arrive" is just a matter of deftness of GM framing.

For instance:

I have a dungeon with goblins. It is generaically themed (eg its not "Cooking the Caraveners"); "Goblins in the ruin!" Its basically an unthemed, off-line dungeon that is only coming on-line right now because the PCs are interacting with it. I have it mapped, keyed, stocked and ready for play.

I have an opening situation in room 1. I have a situation in 5 of the 20 rooms (every 4 rooms) with the Wandering Monster Clock handling the dynamic content generation. Even if they heard about this dungeon multiple weeks prior Why would I need to change the opening situation in room 1, even if the PCs heard about the Goblin in the Ruins (!) dungeon x days/weeks ago, when the dungeon is only now coming on-line?

Rooms 2 through 20 may have dynamic interaction because the dungeon has come online and perhaps the results of stock encounters or Wandering Monsters changes the situation of subsequent rooms (this would be the Setting/Faction Clocks I posted upthread - these came on-line after PC interaction).

But why do I need to change the opening situation to the prior off-line, now on-line content? Why does the framing need to be evolved (and something like, "well because offscreen/off-line thing y or z occurred" is not responsive to the question...that is just a statement akin to "well, because Setting Solitaire"...which is fine...but then "why Setting Solitaire?").

I don't know what a wandering monster clock is, so I can't honestly answer this question without a clear definition of that term.