What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

The point is that the model is imaginary. There are no algorithms and no causal processes that yield answers. No matter how hard I study the problem, I can't work out the details of Sherlock Holmes's living room until Conan Doyle tells me. Telling me it's a typical middle-to-upper-middle-class living room in Victorian London won't yield an answer on its own.

No one is saying you can extract information about he model that the GM hasn't told you. But you could explore it room to room and get a sense of the overall structure based on what is emerging, provided he is accurately conveying the model details to you. And you could solve a mystery in that house, with evidence described, through conversations of characters to arrive at an accurate account of a murder that occurred there (a murder the GM has modeled in his head but hasn't told you the details off: merely provided evidence that would logically have been present----which you would have acquired through a process of exploration).

 

[Aldarc]

How does deciding on the DC work differently within indie games?
Are players part of the process of deciding or is it GM decides/notes?

@Manbearcat provided an excellent survey of many of the games that commonly get floated in these discussions. I can supply a few other indie games.

Fate (Core, Accelerated, Condensed)

Fate is more traditional when it comes to DCs in that the GM often sets the difficulty, though this is done in one of two ways: rolling opposition or setting difficulty. If the PCs are facing opposition, particularly from NPCs, the GM may roll the attack or defense of the opposition. The success of the attack depends on the outcome of the defense roll (e.g., fail, tie, success, etc.). Moreover, in Fate opposition rolls can be used in combat or even social scenes (e.g., Provoke attack vs. Will defense). Or much like in 4e D&D, the GM may decide that a series of skill challenges are required.

For setting the difficulty, there is a DC scale, with associated adjectives (e.g., poor, -1; mediocre, +0; average, +1; fair, +2; etc.). Fate provides GM advice for when to use low, medium, and high difficulties in terms of what it means for the PCs: e.g., use low to give them a chance to show off, medium to provide tension but not overwhelm them, or high to emphasize dire or unusual circumstances. There is also the general advice that if you can think of one reason why a task is tough, the GM should generally choose Fair (+2) and add +2 for every additional reason.

This also does not include the possibility for the GM to invoke/compel aspects that are in play: e.g., PCs' aspects, NPCs' aspects, scene aspects, etc. This can affect the opposition or DC.

The players may roll to beat this DC using their Approaches, Skills, Rated Aspects, relevant Stunts, etc. If they fail, players can spend fate points to invoke the relevant aspects from their character for a +2 per invoked aspect or to re-roll.

Cortex (Prime)

In the basic version of Cortex Prime, the GM assembles an opposition pool. This is typically two dice of the same type, based on the perceived difficulty of the situation in the fiction - e.g., Very Easy (2d4); Easy (2d6); Challenging (2d8); Hard (2d10); Very Hard (2d12) - which is then added together to set the difficulty. So although the GM does determine the general rating of the dice, there is some randomness as a result of the die roll. All rolls are openly rolled, including the GM's.

Players then assemble their own character's dice pool. Again, it's add (typically) the two highest from rolling the player's dice pool to exceed the difficulty rolled by the GM.

Players assemble their pool through selecting one rated die from each of their traits (i.e., Prime Sets) plus any secondary traits that may be relevant. Cortex assumes, however, that players will have at least three prime sets: i.e., Distinctions (similar to Fate's character aspects) plus two to three more (e.g., Attributes, Skills, Roles, Affiliations, Relationships, Values, Resources, etc.). These have to be based on and relevant to the fiction. Because of the game's toolkit approach, these prime sets will vary between versions.

Moreover, since Cortex is highly modular, there are a fair number of mods about how to change how difficulty is set: e.g., Doom Pool.

 

[Emerikol]

OSR play significantly deempahsizes the 5 minute work day. There are far less per day abilities and far less per day healing. A greater emphasis on resource management also makes the 5MWD less appealing because there are significantly more pressures on the party's time due to things like food and torch use, things that are laughably hand wave-y in 5E and newer editions. The newer the edition, generally speaking, the more you deal with 5 minute workday style play. Pointing to OSR play here is probably a mistake on your part.

This is patently laughable. The whole movement against the 5 minute workday was as a result of 1e and 2e. You do realize that every single one of the wizards spells were once per day in 1e and 2e. There were none of these cantrip attack spells. You threw daggers a lot. And resource management, at high levels only rarely came into play and only in some campaigns like mine where it is valued. There were plenty of groups that just didn't use it and in many cases those same groups were complaining about the 5 minute workday.

 

[Bedrockgames]

...as a living world. I think that you prefer viewing how you run the game in terms of its aesthetical ends rather than its aromantic nitty gritty process. If don't have a good word for it, then I would advise trying to come up with one, because "living world" isn't cutting the mustard.


I can't see how imagining the NPCs as characters with personal volitions and motives of their own is distinctly "living world." This falls fairly squarely in how one of the chief duties of GMing is commonly described - i.e., controlling and giving life to the NPCs - in more bog standard TTRPG play. Making the pieces move on the board is basically just "leveling-up" the pre-existing toolkit for GMs.

Listening to you describe how your "living world process," I (and likely others) feel about like Ricky Gervais listening to Sir Ian McKellen in Extras describing how he can act so well.

But I get it. You want a world that fees vibrant, organic, and alive. You want a world that feels like it's in motion independent of the PCs. However, it is abundantly clear to me that the "living world" is an aesthetic goal of play rather than the actual process of how it unfolds. I think it's fine to say "the GM decides what's believable." They may be deciding based upon the constraints of their ideas in a given moment, their notes, their preconceptions of "realism" or the NPCs, or the actions of the PCs. The wholistic approach to describe what's fundamentally going on isn't "living world," but, rather, "the GM decides (based upon their desire to cultivate a particular aesthetic of play)." There is nothing wrong with this, as I and others who have also run sandbox games have told you numerous times before. Even if "living world" helps you understand what you do, I just don't think that mystifying "living world" helps anything for everyone, as evidenced by @Campbell's own experiences.

It is not just an aesthetic and it isn't just choosing things in the moment. The whole point of a living NPC is to track them as a piece on the board in your head. You are not simply saying "Well Harkon Lukas will show up now because he is untethered to one spot and it is a good time to have him attack the party"; you choose moment to moment what he is doing and why, what he is planning, if he is sending a spy after the party (when that spy would reach them---maybe giving the players a roll to detect said spy; when that spy brings information to Harkon lukas), when and how Lukas can act against the party, or if he pursues another tactic. And true this isn't unique to living world. It can be done in other types of adventures as I said. It is simply more prioritized, taken more seriously and expanded in a living world. I am sorry but that isn't an aesthetic and it isn't me being Ian McKellen in that sketch. I get that is how you want to see me. I get that you dislike me. But your dislike is clouding your evaluation of what I am saying.

 

[Emerikol]

High level play is the least common play tier, so why is that the yardstick? I'd also submit that played with strict attention to detail on the resource side, this isn't how B/X or BECMI actually play, and certainly not at low or mid tier. I was specifically addressing the 5 minute workday remember, which isn't just about healing, but also blowing nova abilities, a thing that those editions don't really have.

I handled the 5 minute workday very well but my own observation of most gamers is that they did not. In those days it was rampant. A sign of bad DMing in my opinion? Yes. It comes from living in a static world. If the monsters hold still and wait on you then why not rest up and take another run at them. When the monsters pack up and leave with the treasure then it's not such a good plan. In my world, if the PCs are whipping up on the enemy the enemy has two choices. Reinforce or run. Either typically makes the extra rest not worth it.

Part of handling the situation is that my wizards did not waste spells just to feel good about themselves. The whole notion of spotlight was not present. My groups acted like they were in it to win it and that death lurked around every corner. That means you don't waste a spell when you can handle a situation without it. So there were days when my wizards went to bed with most of their spells unused. There were other days though were the group escaped only because the wizard had the right spell and the situation was desperate.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is patently laughable. The whole movement against the 5 minute workday was as a result of 1e and 2e. You do realize that every single one of the wizards spells were once per day in 1e and 2e. There were none of these cantrip attack spells. You threw daggers a lot. And resource management, at high levels only rarely came into play and only in some campaigns like mine where it is valued. There were plenty of groups that just didn't use it and in many cases those same groups were complaining about the 5 minute workday.

I may simply have not been aware, but this doesn't match my memory at all. I remember it being a reaction to 3E (possibly to 4E). Or really more of a criticism (there were plenty of counter arguments to five minute work day not being an issue at the table and being more a theoretical one raised on forums). Obviously the game was vancian in 1 and 2 E, but wandering encounter tables at that time made the idea of just camping out to heal kind of difficult. what I remember more frequently was the wizard needing to conserve their magic over the course of play (and at low levels basically having to suck it up when they ran out of spells: but at the time the balance of the wizard was you were weak and sucked initially, you took a long time to advance, but once you did advance you became incredibly powerful).

 

[Aldarc]

It is not just an aesthetic and it isn't just choosing things in the moment. The whole point of a living NPC is to track them as a piece on the board in your head. You are not simply saying "Well Harkon Lukas will show up now because he is untethered to one spot and it is a good time to have him attack the party"; you choose moment to moment what he is doing and why, what he is planning, if he is sending a spy after the party (when that spy would reach them---maybe giving the players a roll to detect said spy; when that spy brings information to Harkon lukas), when and how Lukas can act against the party, or if he pursues another tactic. And true this isn't unique to living world. It can be done in other types of adventures as I said. It is simply more prioritized, taken more seriously and expanded in a living world. I am sorry but that isn't an aesthetic and it isn't me being Ian McKellen in that sketch.

I hear what you are saying, but I still vehemently disagree, since you are just reinforcing my point here. You are doing all this tracking/moving/thinking of the NPC for a purpose: i.e., to create a living world aesthetic. That's clearly an aesthetic goal of play, an admirable one even, that drives your play processes forward, and others who aren't you have been able to clearly recognize that despite your insistence that it's not.

In regards to Sir Ian McKellan, I think that pemerton's reaction is pretty indicative of how your "living world" bit is coming across:

I would have thought this is trivially true of all RPGing.

I get that is how you want to see me. I get that you dislike me. But your dislike is clouding your evaluation of what I am saying.

I would suggest that you should hold your statement here up to a mirror so you can see for yourself how you commonly treat or respond to others you often disagree with, such as pemerton, Ovinomancer, or Manbearcat. You have no moral high ground to say this. None.

 

[prabe]

I don't understand how this process of the players asking questions from you, or otherwise prompting you to share this sort of information with them, does not count as you communicating to them your conception of the fiction.

That makes it sound as though the fiction is mostly-mine, and the experience feels like entirely-ours. It appears to miss the possibility that I don't know that I know the answer to a given question before asked (which is why I've talked about free-writing fiction as a comparison). It seems to ignore that the players can change the fiction, or that they can change my conception of the fiction (which might be two different things, or they might not). It also fails to include--because I omitted it--that sometimes I ask the players questions.

A possibly unrelated question: From where you are, how much difference do you see between the posters here who have advocated strongly for a "living world" and my self-description?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would suggest that you should hold your statement here up to a mirror so you can see for yourself how you commonly treat or respond to others you often disagree with, such as pemerton, Ovinomancer, or Manbearcat. You have no moral high ground to say this. None.

I have heated exchanges with Manbearcat but I respect him. I don’t dislike anyone in this thread (not you, not pemerton). There are behaviors that bother me. Pemerton and I have never seen eye to eye, but I treat people nice if they are nice to me. Not saying I am never at fault, I am sure some of the insults came my way because I said something and didn’t realize it’s impact. I am willing to apologize if I say something and it bothered someone. But if someone insults me, that is likely to get a reaction. And even then I think I am fairly polite and reasonable (I just stare clearly if I feel insulted). But look at our exchange, you have been extremely hostile to me this whole thread, yet I engage you and and try to genuinely answer your posts. But it is obvious you dislike me.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I hear what you are saying, but I still vehemently disagree, since you are just reinforcing my point here. You are doing all this tracking/moving/thinking of the NPC for a purpose: i.e., to create a living world aesthetic. That's clearly an aesthetic goal of play, an admirable one even, that drives your play processes forward, and others who aren't you have been able to clearly recognize that despite your insistence that it's not.

In regards to Sir Ian McKellan, I think that pemerton's reaction is pretty indicative of how your "living world" bit is coming across:

Well I am not making the claim that living world is sone esoteric high level of play. It is an approach, a set of guiding principles and structure. I don’t think it is aesthetic though anymore than a dungeon structure is aesthetic or a Ley the dice fall where they may is an aesthetic one. It shapes outcomes significantly. If you keep an eye on it, make a point of maintaining the living world, it isn’t simply an illusion: you are providing a world to the players that changes, that follows logic and has internal consistency.