What is the point of GM's notes?

[uzirath]

I'm curious to flip this around a bit and think of my experiences as a player. I don't typically care much if a GM prepares ahead of time or not. I care, of course, if the game is a fun experience that was worth my time. With some GMs, that seems to require prep: if they don't have time to prepare, they get flustered and spend too much time looking things up or changing their mind or whatever. Others seem to do fine with little prep.

I have in the past gotten frustrated when the fiction becomes inconsistent. If my notes about a past session say one thing but the GM forgets, that tends to push me out of my happy place as a player. Similarly if some mechanic worked one way and now it works a different way for no apparent reason, that can be frustrating too. If the GM is creative and humble enough to incorporate corrections or provide a post hoc explanation, I'm good with that (and I strive to do that as a GM myself). I did have one GM, though, who played very fast and loose all the time. I found his games really fun for short adventures. When I played in a longer campaign, however, it didn't work as well for me. There were so many inconsistencies that it started feeling like our choices didn't matter.

At the time of that game, I was annoyed that the GM wasn't more organized. I felt like he should have been doing more to prepare and keep track of locations and NPCs. (It was a space opera setting where we were always galavanting around the galaxy.) After reading many of these threads, I think it may also have been that the RPG we were playing at the time (a small indie game called Persona) didn't have enough structure around who was empowered to drive the fiction. It was, in some ways, a traditional GM-driven game trying to be more oriented toward protagonism.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Okay, so there's a meteor that's struck a far off city in the game world.

In one game, when the status of the city somehow comes up, a player asks "What happened to the Far City?" The GM references his knowledge of the game world and replies "It was struck by a meteor! It was a catastrophic event that destroyed half the city!"

In another game, when the status of the city somehow comes up, a player asks "What happened to the Far City?" The GM decides then and there that "It was struck by a meteor! It was a catastrophic event that destroyed half the city!"

How in the hell would a player know the difference?

Now, I was using the example you offered.....and maybe a meteor crashing into a far off city isn't the best way to gauge if there is some benefit to prep versus improv because it's totally out of the blue.....but I really don't see how from the player view when this was decided really matters, or how I'd even know when it was decided if the GM didn't tell me.

From the GM side, I think it's safe to say this is a matter of preference. Some GMs like to have things like this decided ahead of time, others prefer to think off the cuff. I don't see how either is really more geared toward portraying a living world.

 

[prabe]

How in the hell would a player know the difference?

I have a suspicion that at the table, you'd be able to tell whether the GM was pulling that out of world-prep (as opposed to session-prep) or doing an ass-pull. I have a stronger suspicion that as a player, you'd know if your GM habitually ran from prep or ad-lib. That's not set in stone, of course, and both approaches work.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, so there's a meteor that's struck a far off city in the game world.

In one game, when the status of the city somehow comes up, a player asks "What happened to the Far City?" The GM references his knowledge of the game world and replies "It was struck by a meteor! It was a catastrophic event that destroyed half the city!"

In another game, when the status of the city somehow comes up, a player asks "What happened to the Far City?" The GM decides then and there that "It was struck by a meteor! It was a catastrophic event that destroyed half the city!"

How in the hell would a player know the difference?

So first, in "one game", the status of the city doesn't come up and then they learn it was hit by a meteor. They just learn it was hit by a meteor. The information comes to them. They also know that they are in a prep game where the DM preps events like this.

In "another game" it's unlikely that the information comes to them on its own like in the prep game. More likely they ask if they've heard anything interesting and get the response. They went looking for something interesting and it got fed into their PC bubble. They also know that they are playing an improv game and that information was made up on the spot.

From the GM side, I think it's safe to say this is a matter of preference. Some GMs like to have things like this decided ahead of time, others prefer to think off the cuff. I don't see how either is really more geared toward portraying a living world.

In a living world, stuff happens outside of the PC bubble, much of which doesn't center on the PCs(hence outside of the bubble). In an improv game, everything centers on the PCs(is inside the bubble), so it doesn't allow living world. A combination prep and improv game can allow a living world, but it depends on if the DM is prepping world events outside the bubble or not.

 

[chaochou]

"Hey, Guys! You'll never guess what just happened 200 miles away in a place you don't know exists with people you've never heard of! It was so cool! The whole scene just unfolded in my mind and there was a huge fight, and then people you'll never meet had an argument about what it all meant and now they're doing stuff you'll never know about!

"And then to top it all I rolled this crazy weather roll in those lands you don't care about. All that snow's playing havoc with the yachting contest which will never be mentioned. Seriously, you won't believe what's gonna happen next in the game you're not playing!"

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have a suspicion that at the table, you'd be able to tell whether the GM was pulling that out of world-prep (as opposed to session-prep) or doing an ass-pull. I have a stronger suspicion that as a player, you'd know if your GM habitually ran from prep or ad-lib. That's not set in stone, of course, and both approaches work.

It’s possible you may know either because you’re familiar with the GM or because he gives some indication about how it was determined; like sayin “geez I dunno...it got hit by a meteor, I guess.”

Now the question of how this really matters....

 

[hawkeyefan]

So first, in "one game", the status of the city doesn't come up and then they learn it was hit by a meteor. They just learn it was hit by a meteor. The information comes to them. They also know that they are in a prep game where the DM preps events like this.

So the GM just tells them about this? What do you mean “it doesn’t come up, they just learn of it”?

And this recitation by the GM of events entirely unrelated to anything the PCs are doing somehow helps portray a living world?

Doesn’t there need to be some kind of context for the GM to present this kind of information to them?

In "another game" it's unlikely that the information comes to them on its own like in the prep game. More likely they ask if they've heard anything interesting and get the response. They went looking for something interesting and it got fed into their PC bubble. They also know that they are playing an improv game and that information was made up on the spot.

So if something’s made up on the spot, then that can't be a living world? What if a roll on a random table is made? I’ve seen a lot of living world proponents endorse random tables.

In a living world, stuff happens outside of the PC bubble, much of which doesn't center on the PCs(hence outside of the bubble). In an improv game, everything centers on the PCs(is inside the bubble), so it doesn't allow living world. A combination prep and improv game can allow a living world, but it depends on if the DM is prepping world events outside the bubble or not.

What if I’m playing a new game of 5E D&D with a GM I don’t know well yet. He shares details and I’m not sure if they’re made up ahead of time or on the spot.

Am I not allowed to say “wow this GM is good at portraying a living world”?

 

[prabe]

It’s possible you may know either because you’re familiar with the GM or because he gives some indication about how it was determined; like sayin “geez I dunno...it got hit by a meteor, I guess.”

Now the question of how this really matters....

I think it matters if the players are expecting the GM to know/prep this stuff, and/or if the GM is telling them he is. I know I'd be a little baffled and/or disappointed if a city were hit by a meteorite on the GM's whim (I'd be far happier if the GM stopped with "I dunno").

Edit: Phrased differently, it matters if the GM doing an ass-pull violates the players' expectations or the GM's promises/claims.

 

[Maxperson]

So the GM just tells them about this? What do you mean “it doesn’t come up, they just learn of it”?

And this recitation by the GM of events entirely unrelated to anything the PCs are doing somehow helps portray a living world?

The DM probably says something about hearing rumors of blah blah blah. Something that big would be talked about all over. The players wouldn't need to inquire.

And yes it does. It's also not a recitation. The players are free to investigate or not as they please.

Doesn’t there need to be some kind of context for the GM to present this kind of information to them?

What do you mean?

So if something’s made up on the spot, then that can't be a living world? What if a roll on a random table is made? I’ve seen a lot of living world proponents endorse random tables.

Yes, but they roll it and establish those events prior to the PCs learning about it and set the timing of the event. It happens independently of the PCs.

What if I’m playing a new game of 5E D&D with a GM I don’t know well yet. He shares details and I’m not sure if they’re made up ahead of time or on the spot.

Am I not allowed to say “wow this GM is good at portraying a living world”?

You can say whatever you like. Free speech and all that.

But seriously, nothing is perfect. You might mistake a living world for not or vice versa before you get to know a DM.

 

[Campbell]

From my perspective (speaking as a relatively prep intensive GM) time of creation has far less of an impact on the play experience than the actual creative process, What's actually going on in the GM's mind when they are designing the material in question. Are they being a curious explorer of fiction, really considering how things would be? Are they setting things up for a planned story beat? Are they creating a provocative situation related to the PCs for players to respond to? Are they creating something they expect to be interesting for players to think about (like abstractly)? What's the creative agenda?

Timing of when something is created can have an impact on GM mindset for some GMs. It can allow for more hygienic decision making in the case of not wanting to be too influenced by what's currently happening at the table. Sometimes GMs find it easier to embrace different mindsets at different times. That's all deeply personal though.

Material that is given more time to go through the creative process will tend to be more polished, but that's really irrespective of GM agenda.