What is the point of GM's notes?

[pemerton]

Could a stranger walk up to a DM and ask him what is happening in another part of the world that the PCs have never went anywhere near and have never talked about in game session and the DM could answer? That would make it a living world. Things are happening "off camera". Off camera meaning when the PCs are not looking at it.

I've bolded the bit I'm curious about. What makes it the case that the GM could answer? Is this because the GM has written it down in his/her notes? Or is there some other reason.

 

[uzirath]

I'm curious about @pemerton's question too. I have always liked the phrase "living world" to describe my ideal for what an imaginary world should "feel" like. As my discretionary time has dwindled with the increasing responsibilities of career and family, however, I find myself doing far less prep than I used to. I rarely spend much time writing notes about things that I don't think will impact the PCs. But, I have enough of a sense of the world that I could probably field most hypothetical questions from strangers. Is making up the answer on the spot "good enough" to count as a living world, if the answer is consistent with the rest of the known facts of the world? Or does it need to have been written down somewhere first?

 

[Emerikol]

I've bolded the bit I'm curious about. What makes it the case that the GM could answer? Is this because the GM has written it down in his/her notes? Or is there some other reason.

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer:
Recorded or abstracted. So weather or random monsters could be defined as a table you roll on for any given day. Although with weather I'd probably still like it rolled in such a way that it's realistic but that is more about realism than living world. And when I say realistic, I really mean just plausible and not super scientific. I have no issue though with DMs that want to declare their worlds as different than ours on fundamental levels. I do that on occasion but not with weather.

So the DM should know a good bit about the off camera world and it should be changing over time. That is the minimum for me to think it is a living world as I've used the term. The off camera world is the world unseen by anyone during an actual play session.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm curious about @pemerton's question too. I have always liked the phrase "living world" to describe my ideal for what an imaginary world should "feel" like. As my discretionary time has dwindled with the increasing responsibilities of career and family, however, I find myself doing far less prep than I used to. I rarely spend much time writing notes about things that I don't think will impact the PCs. But, I have enough of a sense of the world that I could probably field most hypothetical questions from strangers. Is making up the answer on the spot "good enough" to count as a living world, if the answer is consistent with the rest of the known facts of the world? Or does it need to have been written down somewhere first?

Well I've said on numerous occasions that the best improv is that which is built upon a solid foundation. This is not an exact science though so it's hard to define precisely where the line is at. I'd say if you are doing very little prep at all AND you aren't using a third party world then you aren't really doing a living world by my definition.

Now what you can effectively hold inside your head varies so the line varies. You may have an excellent memory and be able to remember a lot of details that you've thought out. My memory isn't that good.

I do think that the detail of knowledge you have lessens as you expand out from the sandbox. So the sandbox is pretty detailed. And other areas outside the sandbox don't have nearly that level of detail. I like to say I keep one level down from a Grayhawk gazateer level of detail. Meaning I know all of that stuff pretty much across the continent. I know the trade routes, the nations, even the rulers and some ideas about the history. I may not have the capital city of a nation far away mapped out. So if the parties sandbox was Greyhawk city, then I'd have that detailed down to the building and the NPCs in the building but I don't have Rauxes detailed out and may not even have a good map. I do though likely have a map of the neighboring cities and nations.

I also know my religions inside out. A lot of this gets handed to the players ahead of time if they know about it. So they can familiarize themselves with what their character knows.

Those DMs with less time can do several things to help themselves
1. Use a third party setting for the big detail including the religions, factions, nations etc...
2. Reuse a world that they create. Meaning you do the hard work once but you reuse the world.

Also if the PCs have played in the world already that may help them with world knowledge in a future campaign with a different character.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You see we invented a term that you argue is inappropriate just like you guys have invented many terms that go too far. But in fairness, living world as I defined it above, was pretty much the definition for decades before Story Now existed.

That's not the issue at all. I don't have any kind of problem with the idea of trying to portray a living world; I've been pretty clear I think that's a goal that most of us here would shoot for. My complaint is the use of the term to describe methods to achieve that goal that are only loosely defined.

Many types of games have the portrayal of a living world as a goal. Just as many games have fun as a goal. But if you ask someone how they GM if they said "using the fun style" you might feel like grabbing them and shaking them.

Also, in my opinion, when that happens, folks are saying "THIS is the only way to achieve a living world because it's the living world method", which implies that other games are not concerned about that goal, and I don't think that's accurate.

So it's not that I think there's a problem with the term itself, so much as in how it has been used.

At that time, the definition would be: Things are happening in the world off camera. Could a stranger walk up to a DM and ask him what is happening in another part of the world that the PCs have never went anywhere near and have never talked about in game session and the DM could answer? That would make it a living world. Things are happening "off camera". Off camera meaning when the PCs are not looking at it.

So I asked this of @Maxperson and I'm waiting on some clarity from him, but I'll ask you as well.

Is there a difference when asked about what's on the far side of the world if the GM has been thinking about this in his free time and has an answer prepared, or if he simply makes one up on the spot?

I'll break it down a little more. From the player's perspective, is there if a difference? If so, what is it and how would the player even be aware of it? From the GM perspective, is there a difference? If so, would you say that it's totally subjective and a matter of preference, or do you think there is an objective answer?

Now that is just a gamist definition. No roleplaying game meets the real definition above. For decades though that term has been the way we describe these sorts of campaigns. We didn't make it up last week.

I've heard that term for years, but always more as a goal rather than as a method. If it's a method, then what is the method? Because from what I can see, different games go about striving for that goal in different ways.

But if something is meant to be a method or a style.....like "Story Now", for example.....then it should have a pretty uniform application. I don't think that's been shown in this thread at all.

It's just like protagonism, fiction, bla bla bla that have been appropriated by the Story Now community to mean something that they don't mean in real life. They turned them into gamist terms. Well right back at you on living world. We can all agree to be careful with these terms or we can just consider them placeholders for a particular playstyle and ignore the underlying english meaning of the word. I don't care which but it has to hold for all sides.

Those words were used with the known definitions. Fiction means make believe. that's the only way it's been used in this thread. There was no need to change the word in any way for it to mean what it means.

Living world does seem to be meant as a placeholder as you suggest....but when asked what it is a placeholder for, it's been a struggle. Most of the time, references are made to a GM's prep and in advancing that based on passing time within the world. Okay, fine.....but then there was resistance to the idea of playing to learn what the GM has determined.

Well I've said on numerous occasions that the best improv is that which is built upon a solid foundation. This is not an exact science though so it's hard to define precisely where the line is at. I'd say if you are doing very little prep at all AND you aren't using a third party world then you aren't really doing a living world by my definition.

What is your definition?

 

[Maxperson]

So I asked this of @Maxperson and I'm waiting on some clarity from him, but I'll ask you as well.

Is there a difference when asked about what's on the far side of the world if the GM has been thinking about this in his free time and has an answer prepared, or if he simply makes one up on the spot?

I must have missed this, because I don't recall it.

If the DM has come up with an event that happens on the far side of the world, say a meteor hitting a city and taking half of it out, and word reaches the PCs, it's still something he decided on prior to session 8 when the players hear about it, even if it wasn't written down. Obviously in this case the DM is a prep DM, but didn't put what he prepared into written form. That doesn't change the fact that it was still prepared ahead of time.

For an improv DM, there was no preparation of the event ahead of time. He's simply inserting something for the PCs into the PC bubble that has to do with the other side of the world. Something made up on the spot isn't part of a living, breathing world, because the world didn't continue moving without the PCs. It moved because the PCs moved and is squarely in their bubble.

The timing matters a great deal to the feel.

 

[Cadence]

For an improv DM, there was no preparation of the event ahead of time. He's simply inserting something for the PCs into the PC bubble that has to do with the other side of the world. Something made up on the spot isn't part of a living, breathing world, because the world didn't continue moving without the PCs. It moved because the PCs moved and is squarely in their bubble.

Does any DM keep track of all of it though? Do you know what's going on in every place the PCs have ever visited in case they want to teleport back there some day? Is it not living world when you pause when they say where they're going and imagine how it would have developed?

 

[Maxperson]

Does any DM keep track of all of it though? Do you know what's going on in every place the PCs have ever visited in case they want to teleport back there some day? Is it not living world when you pause when they say where they're going and imagine how it would have developed?

No, and as I said before, there's no need to. No one can track everything they interact with in every place they do so and figure it all out. Heck, when they save a town from an attack, they've impacted pretty much everyone and altered many courses.

If the DM is planning events that happen now and again, whether selected, from a random table or some combination, and has some interactions develop into more, the feel of the world moving around them, but outside of them is generated. Nobody can expect more than that from a DM. There's only so much time in the DM's life and he has other priorities.

 

[Cadence]

No, and as I said before, there's no need to. No one can track everything they interact with in every place they do so and figure it all out. Heck, when they save a town from an attack, they've impacted pretty much everyone and altered many courses.

If the DM is planning events that happen now and again, whether selected, from a random table or some combination, and has some interactions develop into more, the feel of the world moving around them, but outside of them is generated. Nobody can expect more than that from a DM. There's only so much time in the DM's life and he has other priorities.

So, both the prep DM and improv DM are very likely to answer using the same process for much of the world (namely, the vast majority of it that the prep DM hasn't prepped for)?

 

[Maxperson]

So, both the prep DM and improv DM are very likely to answer using the same process for much of the world (namely, the vast majority of it that the prep DM hasn't prepped for)?

Nobody can prep for everything, so some amount of improv is necessary. We aren't gods. Prep DMs, though, when he can see that players are headed to an area of the world he doesn't have prepped in great detail, has time to prepare a lot more while they travel there. Thankfully 5e made teleport so unreliable that it's not often used for travel outside of emergencies, so the DM has more time to know where the group is going.

Outside of general prep, the prep DM trying to create a living world(Many prep DMs don't, and that's not inherently a bad thing) will also prep some events and other aspects of the world that show it moving along outside of the PC bubble. Those thing are intended for the PCs to learn about, because DMs don't just do work that nobody will ever see, but doesn't always come to the PCs attention.

The Improv DM doesn't really generate anything outside of the PC bubble. Everything is in response to them and for them, even rumors of an event on the other side of the world. The focus of everything is the PCs/players.