What is the point of GM's notes?

[Bedrockgames]

I said “dynamic setting” upthread rather than “living, breathing world”.

Is there a reason why the latter depiction is more efficient/functional than the former?

Dynamic setting is fine. I would view that largely as a synonym for living world (I personally prefer living world because the 'living' part is really what helps me grasp the idea of how NPCs and factions are moving parts in this dynamic setting).

 

[Bedrockgames]

What is your boggle here?

We'll you've helped me decide what movie to watch tonight. But I have no boggle. We just disagree over how equivocal fiction is. I am not mad or anything. And I am not trying to upset you. I am just very convinced that terms like fiction and story tend to lead to issues in discussions of RPGs because I have seen so much trouble with the term story (and again just to be clear, I am not talking about narrative games or story games or anything like that, I am talking about dumb arguments over mainstream game mechanics and how emulative they should be of things like different genres; and I am talking about how story often gets used in that way, in order to push for GM as storyteller approaches to the game: i.e. RPGs are about the story, and the role of the GM is to tell a good story). To be clear here, in casual use its totally fine. I use plot, story, all the time in table discussions. My concern in these kinds of conversations is I think those types of words, when they have heavy connotations of story or novel (and I think there is a very strong argument to be made that fiction does have that connotation), it can be a problem.

 

[Manbearcat]

Dynamic setting is fine. I would view that largely as a synonym for living world (I personally prefer living world because the 'living' part is really what helps me grasp the idea of how NPCs and factions are moving parts in this dynamic setting).

Now that is interesting to me and I feel like I may be getting somewhere (or not...let’s see how you answer below). 2 questions:

1) So the word “dynamic” does less work for you than “living” when describing how stuff is “in motion” in your setting?

2) Would you say that this is all/mostly a “mind hack” for you akin to a “positive swing thought” or a singular technical focus in a sparring session (say that your hook is inefficient and you’re working on increasing its volume and productivity in your combinations).

Is it that? This collection of words is a good mind hack for you and you feel like maybe it’s a better universal mind hack than another set of words?

Let me be clear...I’m not remotely denigrating mind hacks. I live by them.

 

[Fenris-77]

Fiction is a thing in addition to a category, those are two different uses of the word. Honestly, I couldn't have been more clear and I'm done beating this horse to death. This ridiculous emphasis on slippery definitions where none exist is fruitless. You're obviously going to insist that your wonky postmodern take on definitions is correct no matter what anyone else says. Im out.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sure, and I think I get why. Because you don't want your game to be about making a story in the same sense that an author crafts a story. And I can understand that.

But so what? I don't like the term living world......are you gonna stop using it? No. Should you? No, not if you don't want.

But please don't tell me that others are attempting to equivocate by describing made up things as "fiction" and then use something that you can't even define succinctly.

Living world is like an equivocator's dream.

Yes, I will from now on forsake use of the term "living world"....no obviously not. And obviously you are probably not going to stop using the term fiction. I can't make you do anything you don't want to do, and you shouldn't do anything you don't want to do. But I can argue with you about the validity of the term fiction. And I think it is more important than my use of living world because living world is a concept being invoked to help paint a picture of a suit of GMing techniques and a philosophy of GMing. It is only being used in reference to that one style of play and to styles that decide to embrace the 'living concept'. But here The Fiction is a term being used to describe something fundamental to all RPG experiences: the stuff that happens in the game world as you play the game. What I am positing is a term that only really applies to mostly sandbox GMs. What the Fiction is is a term we all are going to be dealing with when we try to talk about what our respective styles are doing in play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Fiction is a thing in addition to a category, those are two different uses of the word. Honestly, I

But that is the nature of equivocation. A word has multiple meanings and one can invoke different meanings of it in the same discussion. I can invoke fiction to mean 'imagined stuff' but I can also invoke it to mean 'a story' and I can also invoke it to mean stuff like 'novels'.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're obviously going to insist that your wonky postmodern take on definitions is correct no matter what anyone else says. Im out.

This isn't post modernism. I am not a postmodernist. Equivocation is a concept in logic and it is actually pretty useful. Here I think it has utility. You don't and that's fine. But I am not taking this track to annoy you. I genuinely think equivocation with these kinds of terms can be a big issue in RPG discussion (this is probably the one thing I've been consistent on going back at least 8 years on the internet)

 

[Fenris-77]

This isn't post modernism. I am not a postmodernist. Equivocation is a concept in logic and it is actually pretty useful. Here I think it has utility. You don't and that's fine. But I am not taking this track to annoy you. I genuinely think equivocation with these kinds of terms can be a big issue in RPG discussion (this is probably the one thing I've been consistent on going back at least 8 years on the internet)

Oh piss off. I know exactly what equivocation is, and you're looking for it where none exists in thos case. And yes, your approach to definitions is decidedly post modern whether you like it or not.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Now that is interesting to me and I feel like I may be getting somewhere (or not...let’s see how you answer below). 2 questions:

1) So the word “dynamic” does less work for you than “living” when describing how stuff is “in motion” in your setting?

2) Would you say that this is all/mostly a “mind hack” for you akin to a “positive swing thought” or a singular technical focus in a sparring session (say that your hook is inefficient and you’re working on increasing its volume and productivity in your combinations).

Is it that? This collection of words is a good mind hack for you and you feel like maybe it’s a better universal mind hack than another set of words?

Let me be clear...I’m not remotely denigrating mind hacks. I live by them.

My mind is a little mushy today so I will attempt to answer this clearly. I am not familiar with the term positive swing thought. But I think I get what you are saying:

1) Dynamic is totally fine. If you wrote a guide to sandbox and included a section called Dynamic Setting, that would be fine (it might be good to say something like "some call this a living world" just so you are connecting it to that idea for anyone more accustomed to that term, but it works on its own. I just think living world resonates more with me personally. Also I can detach the Living from world and apply it to anything I need. I used to talk about Living Adventures before I even attempted living worlds. I could also talk of a living dungeon (and not in the living wall sense of the term). So I find it a really versatile concept as well.

2) I would say possibly. The rest of my answer to 1 was going to be something like "It resonates with me and it also helps inspire me". I think the key is when I saw the line "They live!" however corny sounding it was, the notion of how to run games like this instantly crystalized in my mind. So just thinking of them as a living world filled with living characters helps keep me running things properly. It is sort of like a reminder that 'this NPC needs to go where he wants to go, not where I think it will be convenient for plot purposes or pacing. This character has agenda, and the agenda, in a way, is independent of me once established. And this character can grow and change.". Somehow, Dynamic, even though it would encompass that, doesn't quite energize my mind as much. Again, I think you have a very engineer-like mind. I have a much more artistic mind (I was originally going to be a musician and used to write lots of music, then I decided I wanted to be a writer, took a detour getting a history degree, and my creative outlet now is gaming). I don't get excited to game, or to run a style of game, because someone breaks it down into clear parts or comes up with functional terms to describe each step: that just isn't how my brain works. Living world, as a concept, excites me and conveys so much more to me than dynamic world. And I think there is a reason it has gained traction (because there is something very inspiring about the term, but people also seem to know what you mean when its invoked: obviously, as this discussion shows, it is not obvious to everyone, but to the corners of the hobby where sandbox was talked about, it communicated what it needed to.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Oh piss off. I know exactly what equivocation is, and you're looking for it where none exists in thos case. And yes, your approach to definitions is decidedly post modern whether you like it or not.

I don't understand why you are so upset Fenris. I am just trying to clarify what I mean (I didn't know if you knew or not, but I was trying to explain that I am not being a postmodernist). I don't have any problem with you. Usually I find you easy to get along with. I can definitely accept the possibility I am wrong. But I can assure you my motivation here isn't that I am looking for something where it doesn't exist. Equivocation around story is something I have genuinely encountered a lot of in RPG discussions. Fiction seems ripe for that too. Plus, like I said, it really seems to cloud the line between 'stuff that happened' and the setting (which for some play styles is going to present an issue in these discussions). I see a lot of room for equivocation with fiction. I have a feeling if you asked a more general audience you would see a lot more confusion around the term. Like I said to Hawkeye, I don't get to decide whether it gets used. But I can give my concern. And for the past several pages, it isn't that I am trying to harp on things. I am just responding to posts taking me to task for bringing up equivocation.

I would reject that i am being a postmodernist here. My worldview is very far from postmodernist. But if we are talking about terms and language, getting into a concept like equivocation is fair in my view. Fiction referring to novels and stories is not a very outlandish thing. And it isn't like I am denying the meaning of fiction. but I do have issues with it being the term for the imagined stuff in a campaign.