What is the point of GM's notes?

[Maxperson]

Ahh, I see where we're going wrong here. I'm specifically talking about limited physical resources like torches and food. not per day abilities. I should have been clearer about that. Physical resources very much establish time sensitivity, which is why they mitigate the 5MWD, most especially at low and mid tier. Obviously this doesn't help if there are abilities that obviate those resources, like the spell Goodberry example, which completely obviates the need to carry rations for most groups. A hand-wavey approach to Darkvision is also a killer here.

I understood you and I don't entirely agree. It CAN do that, but more often low physical resources just made the group go back to town to rest and restock, not push forward. It didn't cure the problem and only happened after several 5 minute work days. It also stopped once the party got continual light and create food and water. Clerics were great for that. I bet there are more permanently glowing copper pieces spread around the game worlds than any other single object.

 

[Maxperson]

This is the sort of equivocation that Bedrockgames was likely talking about, and you have definitely been repeatedly called out by many others in this forum for appealing to dictionary definitions (and mis-readings thereof) for making these sort of flimsy arguments, including much earlier in this thread.

Words(and their definitions) matter. I reject the arguments of people who want to invent new meanings for words and try to use those meanings to refute my arguments, when my arguments are based on the real meaning of said words. And it generally upsets those who want to use fictional definitions and they call me out for it, yes. I also never equivocate with it. The definitions are not ambiguous. When I do bring one out, it is to show specifically, not ambiguously, what I am talking about.

This post of yours about me is pure bunk and quite frankly, insulting. Don't insult me again.

 

[Fenris-77]

I understood you and I don't entirely agree. It CAN do that, but more often low physical resources just made the group go back to town to rest and restock, not push forward. It didn't cure the problem and only happened after several 5 minute work days. It also stopped once the party got continual light and create food and water. Clerics were great for that. I bet there are more permanently glowing copper pieces spread around the game worlds than any other single object.

Well, if the encounter area is completely static then sure, that could be an issue, then it just feels like a save point. But if the group knows they risk losing all their current progress in exploring the dungeon or whatever then they won't be so quick to leave. You also assume that getting back to town is a non-trivial exercise. The longer they journeyed to get there, the less trivial it is to leave and return.

I also think that a lot of GMs (not you specifically) are enormously forgiving about issues of light and things like surprise.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, if the encounter area is completely static then sure, that could be an issue, then it just feels like a save point. But if the group knows they risk losing all their current progress in exploring the dungeon or whatever then they won't be so quick to leave. You also assume that getting back to town is a non-trivial exercise. The longer they journeyed to get there, the less trivial it is to leave and return.

I also think that a lot of GMs (not you specifically) are enormously forgiving about issues of light and things like surprise.

That's true, and it's a large part of what set me on the road to a living, breathing world. I started having remaining monsters discover the bodied and start preparing defenses, etc. From there it was an easy step to start applying logical consequences to all kinds of things.

And of course even that much went away once the cleric hit 5th level. They just spent a few days making sure everyone had light coins and then the cleric used 1 slot on making food and water.

 

[Aldarc]

Words(and their definitions) matter. I reject the arguments of people who want to invent new meanings for words and try to use those meanings to refute my arguments, when my arguments are based on the real meaning of said words. And it generally upsets those who want to use fictional definitions and they call me out for it, yes. I also never equivocate with it. The definitions are not ambiguous. When I do bring one out, it is to show specifically, not ambiguously, what I am talking about.

This post of yours about me is pure bunk and quite frankly, insulting. Don't insult me again.

Words and their definitions matter, but making it a repeated habit to apply narrow readings of dictionary definitions and equivocating on those definitions as the basis for your arguments evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of words, definitions, and meanings. The idea that "definitions are not ambiguous" is laughably flat out wrong, which even the most cursory glance into linguistics would reveal.

Furthermore, there is nothing bunk about the fact that you have been repeatedly called out on this exact misuse of dictionary definitions before in this forum. If you feel insulted by this, then try learning from your mistakes so you avoid repeating them.

 

[Maxperson]

Words and their definitions matter, but making it a repeated habit to apply narrow readings of dictionary definitions and equivocating on those definitions as the basis for your arguments evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of words, definitions, and meanings. The idea that "definitions are not ambiguous" is laughably flat out wrong, which even the most cursory glance into linguistics would reveal.

Furthermore, there is nothing bunk about the fact that you have been repeatedly called out on this exact misuse of dictionary definitions before in this forum. If you feel insulted by this, then try learning from your mistakes so you avoid repeating them.

I post a lot and rarely bring up definitions. When I do, it's generally because someone is refusing to acknowledge a valid use of a definition. When I get called out here, it's for a valid use of a word that someone doesn't like because his argument can't cope with it. If his argument was so great, he wouldn't feel threatened by a valid use of a definition.

I brought up one here recently, because @darkbard was switching(inadvertently) the valid way I was using the word into a different meaning. I quoted it to show him the way I was using it so that he would understand. I don't use definitions to be ambiguous, so I don't equivocate with them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm normally not a fan of dictionary definitional arguments either for very similar reasons. My purpose here, however, is not equivocation but elucidation to show you how your description of "living world" aligns almost text book perfect with what is often meant by "aesthetics" as I briefly explain above.

And I am not going to deny a book definition of aesthetic but I do think given how broad that is: wouldn’t you think it applies to all kinds of things we are talking about: and what distinguishes me talking about playing an npc as an active piece on the board, the GM Weilding power over the world, emphasizing the importance of prep and modeling, tracking movement in the world of PCs and npcs, using tables for events, using dice as part of the resolution method from say a poster talking about mechanics that place limits on GM power, give players mechanisms for accessing GM like power, etc. how is what I am talking about mere aesthetic but what other people talk about process? There is process in what I am talking about as well (I just don’t base everything around the point In play when the GM says things to the players)

 

[Aldarc]

And I am not going to deny a book definition of aesthetic but I do think given how broad that is: wouldn’t you think it applies to all kinds of things we are talking about: and what distinguishes me talking about playing an npc as an active piece on the board, the GM Weilding power over the world, emphasizing the importance of prep and modeling, tracking movement in the world of PCs and npcs, using tables for events, using dice as part of the resolution method from say a poster talking about mechanics that place limits on GM power, give players mechanisms for accessing GM like power, etc.

I think it's about understanding all these things as the set of guiding principles and techniques that you (as a creative) use to support your creative vision (i.e., the living world aesthetic of sandbox play). Many games do aim for similar aesthetics, but also have different processes, techniques, and principles to achieve that aesthetic goal.

how is what I am talking about mere aesthetic but what other people talk about process? There is process in what I am talking about as well (I just don’t base everything around the point In play when the GM says things to the players)

You gotta learn to stop reading everything as some sort of accusation or insult. Please go look back through how @hawkeyefan also picked up and talked about this topic in terms of aesthetics. No one is saying anything about "mere aesthetic," which AGAIN sounds like you fighting hard to read superficiality into my words.

 

[Emerikol]

Whatever. One, you obviously didn't read my posts (see your comment about high level play above). Two, you've somehow taken my argument that resource management mitigates against the 5MWD and somehow made it not only your idea but even managed to paste on a value judgement about it. Three, cantrips don't change the picture, if they did 5E wouldn't have issues with the 5MWD but it does, enormous problems. To sum up, yes resource management works against the 5MWD, congratulations, you've restated my point.

The main point was a refutation of your claim that the 5MWD was not an issue in old school D&D. It was not to debate whether it remains an issue in 5e. Has it gotten worse? No.

And using resources to mitigate the 5MWD is hardly an original idea from either of us. There is a style of game that works whatever the version of D&D that mitigates the 5MWD. I had that style by default and I'm not sure I ever chose the style to specifically mitigate the 5MWD. I think I just thought that is what would happen in those types of situations so I played the monsters fairly.

I agree with whoever said that leaving a room is not like saving a game. That is a fundamental difference between a living breathing world and one that is not. Bad guys react. Good guys react. People engage events as they happen and people are making things happen to advance their personal agendas.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think it's about understanding all these things as the set of guiding principles and techniques that you (as a creative) use to support your creative vision (i.e., the living world aesthetic of sandbox play). Many games do aim for similar aesthetics, but also have different processes, techniques, and principles to achieve that aesthetic goal.

Part of the issue is probably that I am talking about a style of play, adventure structure, philosophy and set of tools, but am not talking about specific games. I think sandbox and living world can work in many systems so I am trying to talk around that (though obviously some systems will run into walls more than others, and some will fight with the living world sandbox more than others if their rules go against any of the above mentioned things at any point). If the idea is, lets talk about systems for living world sandboxes, I think then you are getting more into topics like what kind of sandbox is this, how much room do you have to wiggle on the traditional GM Player relationship, etc. Which of the above principles and tools need to be discarded under certain systems, which ones need to be introduced. But that is a whole other conversation