What is the point of GM's notes?

[Lanefan]

This seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. It's possible to have multiple story-threads going at a time at a TRPG table.

Agreed that multiple simultaneous story-threads are not only possible, they're almost a given.

It's just a matter of not letting anything important get too far out of focus--and it's not just the GM's responsibility, IMO.

Not entirely agreed here. I think it is the GM's responsibility to make sure the most important thing - the party - remains the focus most of the time; and it's the players' dual (and sometimes conflicting) responsibility to both help with this and to advocate for their own character and-or its own storylines.

 

[Lanefan]

Can you describe a party dramaric need, as opposed to a party goal?

Often they're one and the same. The goal is the goal, the dramatic need is whatever's required to achieve that goal (or die trying).

Party Goal: Get the Ring to Mordor. Dramatic need: do whatever is required in order to achieve goal.

Same for an individual character. Its goal is its goal, its dramatic need is whatever's required to achieve that goal (or fail).

Aragorn's Goal: prove myself worthy in the eyes of Elrond. Dramatic need: do whatever is required in order to achieve goal, which in this case might include helping get the ring to Mordor...or not.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Usually they do not; sone investigations have a living adventure element but when I run these I do tend to either think of them as their own adventure structures or, sometimes, as a limited sandbox

Okay, cool. So then what role would you say your Prep plays in an investigative scenario as opposed to a more sandbox style that you've mostly been discussing? Is there the same "back and forth" between GM and Players as you've described in a Sandbox? Is it more one way? Something else?

living world is a concept, an approach. Sandbox is an adventure structure and campaign structure. In terms of verbs, I am not sure I see what you hope to discover here. In terms of what the GM does? I probably wouldn’t reduce it to one verb. Again I find this kind of analysis very reductive. If I were to offer verbs they would be things like facilitate, referee, design, judge, etc. but it wouldn’t be just one thing

I'm honestly just trying to talk about actual techniques. It is a bit reductive in the sense that we're trying to break things down into individual parts. I disagree that living world is an approach in and of itself. It is a goal, I would say. You want to "portray a living world in your game", you don't "living world a game".

Let's just say that some of us in this thread look at that term the same way you do GM's Notes, for the purposes of this conversation. Let's just say you were to describe your game without being able to use that term. What kind of description would you offer?

For instance, I can say that one of the ways I portray a living world when I play Blades in the Dark (and which I would expect most others do since it's a component of the game) is to use Clocks. Any Faction has a Clock or two, or maybe more, based on their goals. These are simply little circles cut into wedges. During the downtime phase, I make rolls for each Faction to see how much progress they make toward a goal, filling up the wedges of the Clock based on the result of the roll.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay, cool. So then what role would you say your Prep plays in an investigative scenario as opposed to a more sandbox style that you've mostly been discussing? Is there the same "back and forth" between GM and Players as you've described in a Sandbox? Is it more one way? Something else?

Prep plays a very different role in investigation. In an investigation adventure I know the players are going to have sites of investigation, that there will likely be a hook presented to them in a very clear form, etc. There is a clear scenario: investigate the disappearance of so and so, follow a trail of clues, etc. I am going to be prepping the trail of clues, the events that led up to the mystery, etc. I may add in some living elements (i.e. maybe The Red Parrot has a lot of flexibility to move around and thwart the pcs efforts if he catches on to them for example), but it isn't quite like a sandbox where I am leaving the 'what will the players be doing tonight' blank. In a sandbox, I am building them an environment, with pieces that are 'alive', with active 'living' organizations, in a world with ongoing conflicts, with lore and locations that can be explored, and allowing the players to do what they want (and I will happily build on where they choose to go or focus on during play). The difference is pretty significant in my mind. So much so that I definitely prep in very different ways. In some respects an investigation is more labor intensive because I have to flesh out the clues, etc. But it is also more focused, because I don't have to worry about prepping the next town over. In a sandbox I need to prep enough that the players will have stuff to do no matter where they go, but also so that those places will be responsive and be able to take on a life of their own once the players start steering in clear directions. A sandbox may include things like dungeon delves (which I think people here don't need any explanation of how to prep), but overlaid on top of that is the living setting. It makes it more likely to have situations arise where rivals show up during their delves to beat to them to the manual. I think sandboxes, ultimately, become about the characters.

In terms of mystery investigations and sandboxes, neither is back and forth between players and GM in terms of prep. You prep the mystery, you prep the sandbox. Some GMs I am sure take input from players before hand. I usually don't. When I have that has been the exception (and it made for a very different kind of game). The back and forth I was talking about was during play (and as an edge case during things like character creation when players are establishing stuff like family details: though there are sandbox approaches that don't allow for that).

During play though, the back and forth is very important. Ultimately what I want is to have to do as little as possible to keep this thing running. I want the players coming up with stuff they want to do, finding things in the setting that interest them and taking those in wild directions. Some of the examples Justin Alexander gave towards the end of his video are the sorts of thing I have in mind here. The classic example for me is the players deciding they want to form their own sect, or deciding they want to seek out particular masters and become their students, then go forth and make a mark for themselves. When players are trying to establish themselves in the martial world, something they may start doing is looking for opponents to defeat so they can grow their reputation. This will often be knowledge dependent and players may ask me (often by using their skills, or just asking me if they know about something---sometimes going through NPCs to get the info) "Is there a guy around here who is known for strong leg techniques, I want to challenge someone like that with my own kicking style to prove mine is better". Maybe I have a person like that in the setting I've established. But if I don't, I might simply decide 'yes there is' or 'no there isn't' based on what I think is likely (and if I am not sure I may just leave it to chance and roll a die). Then I would rapidly create that character on the fly, and establish concrete details in my notes (personality, name, techniques, etc). I have developed a very quick shorthand for this and shortcuts for devising new techniques on the fly. So then maybe the player goes and fights this guy. How that goes is going to be down to tactics, styles and dice....and the outcome could really make a big difference: the player winning might mean they grow their reputation, if they really trounce the person he may even want to become their pupil. Or maybe the player gets destroyed and the reverse happens, or this is the start of a lifelong grudge (possibly a friendship). It is all going to depend on the back and forth details between the player and the NPC.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm honestly just trying to talk about actual techniques. It is a bit reductive in the sense that we're trying to break things down into individual parts. I disagree that living world is an approach in and of itself. It is a goal, I would say. You want to "portray a living world in your game", you don't "living world a game".

This is where I am saying you are wrong. I don't have a good word for it, but I do view the way I run the game as playing the living world. It isn't just a goal. The goal is to make it come alive. But the way you make it come alive is by treating the NPCs as living characters (as pieces in the setting with volition who act when they decide). Again, maybe I am not conveying this well. For me that wandering major encounter section I quoted really crystalized this concept for me. And it is the same for all other living elements of the setting (its sects, its rulers, etc).

 

[Ovinomancer]

The problem with deconstructive analysis, be it here or of any other art form, is that when boiled down it's an attempt to explain art using science; and while doing this might produce some interesting discussion along the way, in the end any such analysis is doomed to fail under the weight of all the non-quantifyable intangibles involved.

Not true at all. There's a difference in looking at how a piece is made, how it works to do what it does, and saying that you can now scientifically reproduce art. I know artists, in school, that are there to learn how to improve their craft by studying methods, and they often can deconstruct a piece of art while maintaining a wonder of it. I know that I have gained appreciation for a number of things after learning more about what goes into making them.

Art is not unknowable and unlearnable, and neither are RPGs. This kind of argument is an example of one that helps make it difficult to encourage new players to become new GMs -- it makes it sound like you have to have a great talent to GM. You don't.

Often they're one and the same. The goal is the goal, the dramatic need is whatever's required to achieve that goal (or die trying).

If you're going to change definitions so that your argument is right, can you do so when you ask the question in response to the post you're disagreeing with? A lot of time would have been saved if you'd just said, "I'm going to use a different definition of dramatic need, one very far from the post I'm quoting, and stake an argument on my new definition." Because this? This isn't any definition of dramatic need I've seen in this thread, and certainly isn't what I spent a generous paragraph defining in the post you quoted. This definition of dramatic need really dispenses with anything dramatic at all, as it covers opening that locked door over there as well as buying potions of fire resistance or many other mundane affairs. It isn't speaking to the essential character of the party at all; it doesn't define anything interesting about the party. And, if that's where you'd like to go, then I'm afraid I shan't follow, as it's a dull and uninteresting place with regards to discussing real differences in play.

Party Goal: Get the Ring to Mordor. Dramatic need: do whatever is required in order to achieve goal.

Same for an individual character. Its goal is its goal, its dramatic need is whatever's required to achieve that goal (or fail).

Aragorn's Goal: prove myself worthy in the eyes of Elrond. Dramatic need: do whatever is required in order to achieve goal, which in this case might include helping get the ring to Mordor...or not.

ETA: in a twist, what you call Aragorn's Goal I'd easily name a dramatic need.

 

[Bedrockgames]

For instance, I can say that one of the ways I portray a living world when I play Blades in the Dark (and which I would expect most others do since it's a component of the game) is to use Clocks. Any Faction has a Clock or two, or maybe more, based on their goals. These are simply little circles cut into wedges. During the downtime phase, I make rolls for each Faction to see how much progress they make toward a goal, filling up the wedges of the Clock based on the result of the roll.

There is nothing wrong with clocks. There are similar tools one can use. But I think this misses what I mean by living world. You really have to focus on the NPCs and their goals, not the procedures you are using from time to time to simplify and abstract complicated elements of the living world. I may need from time to time, to resort to rolls or system to resolve things. But the important part of running a living world is being able to know how a given faction would act and respond when something occurs (for example if the players intercept opium shipments that a rival gang was going to buy and sell, the living part of the setting is seriously thinking what that gang and its leaders are going when they learn about the shipment being intercepted: what information do they gain access too, if and when they discover the players involvement what plans do they start formulating, what resources do they have to expend on this, etc). It isn't any extremely special, it is just taking these groups and the characters who make them up as seriously as the players take their characters (i.e. Lady 87 is now extremely pissed at the party and devotes her energy to destroying them: first thing she is going to to is send a squad of 7 elite fighters to kill them where they sleep). It is about being responsive. Tools and widgets are not as important as the mindset and as the guiding principles. A living world in this case begins with taking the character of Lady 87 as a real piece on the board and moving the piece under the real constraints she would face). Widgets, tools, etc these are all important, but they are going to vary from system to system, from GM to GM, etc. I for example use a lot of d10 dice pool rolls on the fly (assigning a dice pool rating to groups or people and rolling to see if they succeed at various tasks). Stuff like territory and completing missions or crimes, you can devise abstractions for. But for me personally I have found the specifics just come up too frequently and undermine my efforts at abstraction (so I have shifted to more of a book keeping approach: charting the shift of gang territory, charting revenue from various places they control, various rackets, etc basically dealing with things in real world terms)

 

[darkbard]

[...] You really have to focus on the NPCs and their goals, not the procedures you are using from time to time to simplify and abstract complicated elements of the living world. I may need from time to time, to resort to rolls or system to resolve things. But the important part of running a living world is being able to know how a given faction would act and respond when something occurs [...] seriously thinking what that gang and its leaders are going when they learn about the shipment being intercepted: what information do they gain access too, if and when they discover the players involvement what plans do they start formulating, what resources do they have to expend on this, etc[...] It is about being responsive. Tools and widgets are not as important as the mindset and as the guiding principles.[...] But for me personally I have found the specifics just come up too frequently and undermine my efforts at abstraction (so I have shifted to more of a book keeping approach: charting the shift of gang territory, charting revenue from various places they control, various rackets, etc basically dealing with things in real world terms)

I think you've communicated this pretty clearly throughout this thread (and others): you prefer GM decides as a system for crafting a "living world." Yet the pushback you are receiving is against the idea that this is a viable way of achieving an objective entity (what some here are terming "the fiction," which you resist) outside of the GM's beliefs of what that would be.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think you've communicated this pretty clearly throughout this thread (and others): you prefer GM decides as a system for crafting a "living world." Yet the pushback you are receiving is against the idea that this is a viable way of achieving an objective entity (what some here are terming "the fiction," which you resist) outside of the GM's beliefs of what that would be.

I agree we are at an impasse here: I don't agree that 'GM decides' is the system though. Again, I think your side keeps trying to reduce it to 'gm decides', 'gm says', but there is a lot more interplay going on, as described, there is a lot more organically unfolding. If you reduce it to that one thing, you wouldn't be able to discern the difference between a railroad or a sandbox. However I don't think there is much point in beating this disagreement into the ground further.

But I would agree we disagree on whether the living world is something that can be achieved. I get that you guys are pushing back. You pushing back doesn't mean you are right. In fact I think you are very wrong on this account. And I think what it really boils down to is a playstyle divide Again I think the position that 'living world isn't viable' is about as sensical as 'BitD isn't an RPG': it is an argument that is really intended to dismiss a style of play one dislikes, one sees as a threat, etc. I say not only are living worlds viable, but that BitD living worlds should also be a thing. I am sure it might be different if the system complicates any of the living world principles I've discussed (and I will leave it to BitD fans to decide if the system does or not. But I see no reason why we can't have trad system living world sandboxes, BitD living world sandboxes, PbtA living world sandboxes, etc. I do think in some systems it will be trickier. One reason I made the distinction between the world and 'the fiction/the scene/the stuff' is when I ran Drama System, that game doesn't distinguish as much between setting and scene and you would need to account for that (whereas in a traditional living world sandbox the setting is treated as a very concrete and separate thing). So distinctions do matter so peoples expectations can be met and the system can function properly in the sandbox, but I am more excited by the possibility of sandboxes flourishing in a variety of systems and styles than being locked into one.

However I did come away from this with one good thing, which is the description of a living sandbox as playing in a setting where NPCs and factions are imaginary pieces with volition that act at will. It is simplistic and only captures one part of it, but it was a way of depicting the style that had not occurred to me before.

 

[Campbell]

There is nothing wrong with clocks. There are similar tools one can use. But I think this misses what I mean by living world. You really have to focus on the NPCs and their goals, not the procedures you are using from time to time to simplify and abstract complicated elements of the living world. I may need from time to time, to resort to rolls or system to resolve things. But the important part of running a living world is being able to know how a given faction would act and respond when something occurs (for example if the players intercept opium shipments that a rival gang was going to buy and sell, the living part of the setting is seriously thinking what that gang and its leaders are going when they learn about the shipment being intercepted: what information do they gain access too, if and when they discover the players involvement what plans do they start formulating, what resources do they have to expend on this, etc). It isn't any extremely special, it is just taking these groups and the characters who make them up as seriously as the players take their characters (i.e. Lady 87 is now extremely pissed at the party and devotes her energy to destroying them: first thing she is going to to is send a squad of 7 elite fighters to kill them where they sleep). It is about being responsive. Tools and widgets are not as important as the mindset and as the guiding principles. A living world in this case begins with taking the character of Lady 87 as a real piece on the board and moving the piece under the real constraints she would face). Widgets, tools, etc these are all important, but they are going to vary from system to system, from GM to GM, etc. I for example use a lot of d10 dice pool rolls on the fly (assigning a dice pool rating to groups or people and rolling to see if they succeed at various tasks). Stuff like territory and completing missions or crimes, you can devise abstractions for. But for me personally I have found the specifics just come up too frequently and undermine my efforts at abstraction (so I have shifted to more of a book keeping approach: charting the shift of gang territory, charting revenue from various places they control, various rackets, etc basically dealing with things in real world terms)

I read something like this and my visceral response is just that it's impossible task. Like just from a project management standpoint I would have no idea how to even begin given your description here. There just does not seem to be any indication or awareness of like the cognitive limits we all have. How do you make it manageable? Like say you have 5 hours to prep for your next session - what does that look like? How do you break up the work? How do you keep it all organized? What guides the creative process when coming with new elements?