What is the point of GM's notes?

[hawkeyefan]

I said in the portion you quoted that the PCs wouldn't need to inquire. Something like that would ball over everyone's tongue. They'd simply over hear it no matter where they went, so the DM just sort of announces, "You overhear people all over the city talking about a meteor that struck Calamityville."

Thank you this is what I was asking. "They just learn it" is vague; "the GM tells the players that the PCs overhear chatter about the event" is specific.

So now that the idea has been introduced to the PCs, is it not within their bubble?

The methods used determine if the world is living or not. Players will feel what they feel, and if they are with a new DM and don't know his methodology(improv, prep or combination), they might be thrown off by that.

See I would think it would have to be the players that would decide if a world felt like a living breathing world since they're the ones "experiencing" it.

If it's solely the methods that determine it, then I think the whole concept would be easier to define....we could establish a list of the methods.

 

[Imaro]

This difference doesn't necessarily seem applicable to the scope of the analysis. The differences between cats and dogs isn't really going to be much of a concern in a discussion more broadly focused on the differences between synapsids and diapsids. If one wanted to draw differences between railroads and dynamic games within the broader family of "discovering GM notes" then one certainly could do so with greater specificity.

So what is the scope of this analysis... because I thought the op was concerned about the purpose of DM notes... so I'm not sure why different results using notes wouldn't be within scope?

 

[Maxperson]

Thank you this is what I was asking. "They just learn it" is vague; "the GM tells the players that the PCs overhear chatter about the event" is specific.

So now that the idea has been introduced to the PCs, is it not within their bubble?

It's enters it, but it didn't originate there. If the DM improvs it in due to wanting to give the PCs something interesting to know, it originates in the bubble as it is centered around the PCs, even if the location is far away.

Look at it this way. If the PCs leave the city they are in the day before the information arrives and go for an extended planar journey, it will never reach their bubble, but it still reaches the city they just left. It's something independent of the PCs and their bubble.

See I would think it would have to be the players that would decide if a world felt like a living breathing world since they're the ones "experiencing" it.

You can't control feelings. Everyone is wired differently. If you ran the game for a sociopath, he wouldn't feel much of what normal people feel about the game, because he can't empathize with the things the DM is relaying to him.

I'm not saying that the players have social disorders, but everyone is different and even if 8 people feel that a world is living, the 9th and 10th may not for reasons. A living world is designed to evoke a certain feel, but that doesn't mean that it will be successful in everyone. Lack of success doesn't mean that it isn't a living world. It just means that it's lost on the person who doesn't feel it. I personally love art and going to the Getty museums is one of my favorite things to do. I don't get modern art, though. Anything a giant red ball sitting all by itself is supposed to evoke in me is just plain lost.

 

[Aldarc]

So what is the scope of this analysis... because I thought the op was concerned about the purpose of DM notes... so I'm not sure why different results using notes wouldn't be within scope?

Sure, but "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes" doesn't appear in the OP either.

In a reply to Lanefan a few pages back, I did ask a question tying into the OP about differences between games in terms of who, how, and why notes are generated, but no one picked up on that or engaged it.

 

[Imaro]

I think this thread is interesting from the living world/non-living world perspective. It's asking the question what do you do if your players choose to ignore a world shattering threat... The answers have a pretty wide range and many of them are not concerned with the appearance of a dynamic or living world at all.

World Shattering events that the PC's ignore

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well I get that these terms on all sides are divisive at times. I was pointing out that living world means something that absolutely would exclude a Story Now game. I also admit that it means what it means purely in a metagame way. It's just a term picked up and used. So I can see how on both sides of the fence these terms in English mean different things than their metagame definition.

So sure anyone in any game could feel a strong sense of verisimilitude and a sense that the imaginary world feels real to them. They may even liken that to the idea of a living world.

But, historically the term has taken on a metagame meaning. Perhaps it took on this meaning in an era where that was the well known way to get to the previous paragraphs feeling about a game.

Then perhaps as a term it's outdated?

Your second paragraph here is how I've always understood it. Perhaps because a lot of times it's also used to describe works of fiction like novels or movies? It would seem to have the same application for RPGs or just about any other kind of fiction.

I've honestly only heard "living world" as an approach as opposed to a goal when discussing in this thread, and a couple of others like it. I don't think it's so ubiquitous that its meaning is apparent.

There is a problem with the term because it's gamist understanding doesn't fit perfectly with it's English definition. Just like fiction, protagonism, etc etc etc....

No, not just like fiction and protagonism because those words already have definitions, and those are the definitions being used. Fiction means "make believe" and always has, and that's how it has been used in this discussion. No new gaming specific definition is needed for either one. So that's why when people say "I don't know what you mean by fiction" all anyone should have to say is "I mean make believe stuff" and we're good.

So no. it is not the same. Living world is a phrase that has no specific definition prior to gaming, and the definition for gaming seems pretty nebulous.

Yes. There is a difference. The answer should be in most instances something the GM knows because it's been established by being put in his notes. Now if on some rare occasion, the GM has to improv then that is an unfortunate result if it's anything beyond trivial details. If it is the kind of question a PC could ask about a nation three hundred miles away, then you should know the answer. Some questions are things a PC likely wouldn't know.

Why is it unfortunate if the GM doesn't know what has happened in a nation three hundred miles away?

I think you're assuming that Prep is always good and the more prep the more good. But why?

Surely, from the players' perspective, if they ask you what's going on in the far off city, and you answer them based on your copious notes, your answer is likely not going to be any "better" than if they ask me and I make it up on the fly.

If the far off city hasn't mattered to play in any way, then how does it matter if the GM has prepared anything there?

I think objectively for people playing in my style that a GM who has it written down will give better answers on average over time. I will say that theoretically it is possible to present a world in the exact same way whether it is ad lib or not. I suspect if God were a GM he could do this. I've never met a GM who I couldn't spot doing this in a single session and often within ten minutes. I will also say that there are those who do write stuff down who still do it poorly.

I think the only way this matters is based on expectation. Which will largely depend on the game and the goals of play. So an old school dungeon delve, sure, having a map and key is going to make sense. This is the purpose of the GM notes for that kind of game.

But in my 5E game, I'm not really worried about skilled play in the sense of old school dungeon delves; we're not worried about inventory and spell loadout in order to navigate a defined dungeon space. It's not the focus of play.

So in my 5E game, I don't worry about my players knowing if I've made something up on the fly or if I've prepared it ahead of time. Why would I? It's made up either way. What does the timing of its creation really matter, unless it impacts the goals of play?

Sure. Your words are perfect English uses. That is why everyone just accepted them and no one pushed back. Oh wait.

It sounds to me like you're blaming me for the mistake of others.

I would say that I received pushback on my use of fiction to mean make believe because of some unfounded fear that it could mean a novel or work of literature.

Oh, and because it's snooty.

A world that
1. Exists in places the PCs have not been or even know about. Exists as in detailed in the notes.
2. Changes over time even without PC stimuli.

I would say that you might think of it as a dial. Meaning it's more living the more you have it detailed and the better you have it change. Our goal is to simulate well a world so the PCs can move around in it and live their lives in a realistic way. You are wanting a boolean answer when in reality it's like saying a movie was good. Well how good? Casablanca good or just good enough to watch but not great?

So you would say that the purpose of a GM's notes in a Living World style is to provide a setting for the players to explore with their characters? Does that sum it up?

 

[Emerikol]

Probably hear rumours? Come on. You aren't foreshadowing every event in your game world with rumours. Even hard core prep only gets you so far. Lets not get silly in our valorization of heavy prep.

While foreshadowing should occur only naturally as the PCs go about their business. Meaning a DM shouldn't go out of his way to provide the info if it's the sort of event people are talking about then I think they will hear about it. At least in my campaign. Again, the event is like a stone in a pond. Far enough away and you don't notice unless it's a big event. Close by you get more events as that is your area of interest.

I think on world events it helps to build out a calendar using a combination of common sense and random rolls. So natural catastrophes do happen just not often. Nations go to war far more often but still not hyper frequently by day to day standards. But that sort of stuff happening in the background without PC involvement is what we mean by a living world.

 

[Fenris-77]

My point was that not matter how much prep you do there are always going to be things you have to make up on the spot, and that's not limited to small details. So rather than us pretending that a living world somehow escapes that reality, which it does not, maybe we should instead look at what to do there. Personally, I tend to use clocks and random charts, or a roll of some kind, depending on what exactly we're talking about. I try to avoid just picking off the top of my head when I can help it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's enters it, but it didn't originate there. If the DM improvs it in due to wanting to give the PCs something interesting to know, it originates in the bubble as it is centered around the PCs, even if the location is far away.

But here's what I'm struggling with......the Prep GM and the improv GM could introduce this news in the exact same way. One had it written down ahead of time, and the other just thinks it up in the moment. So i get that the method is different.

What is the impact on play? How is actual play impacted differently using one method over the other?

It would seem to me to be identical. Here is some news your PCs have heard of a far off place and what is going on there. Perhaps this will be interesting enough fo you to want to go there. Or perhaps as things progress in the game, the context of this news will become more obvious.

Look at it this way. If the PCs leave the city they are in the day before the information arrives and go for an extended planar journey, it will never reach their bubble, but it still reaches the city they just left. It's something independent of the PCs and their bubble.

Okay, but the same could be said if the GM is just making it up on the fly. The PCs leave home city on their planar adventure, and so they don't overhear news of far off places.

You can't control feelings. Everyone is wired differently. If you ran the game for a sociopath, he wouldn't feel much of what normal people feel about the game, because he can't empathize with the things the DM is relaying to him.

I'm not saying that the players have social disorders, but everyone is different and even if 8 people feel that a world is living, the 9th and 10th may not for reasons. A living world is designed to evoke a certain feel, but that doesn't mean that it will be successful in everyone. Lack of success doesn't mean that it isn't a living world. It just means that it's lost on the person who doesn't feel it. I personally love art and going to the Getty museums is one of my favorite things to do. I don't get modern art, though. Anything a giant red ball sitting all by itself is supposed to evoke in me is just plain lost.

Right, this is because it's subjective. What will feel like a living world to one person may not feel like that to another. The goal, I would expect, is to find the techniques and methods that would somehow evoke the living world feeling from as many people as possible.

So far, when it comes to those methods, it seems like:

LIVING WORLD TRAITS

• GM Must prepare a significant amount of the setting ahead of time, with a focus on the immediate locality, with details becoming less clear the further you move from that starting point
• Events or situations must evolve or change irrespective of PC involvement

What else can we add to the list? And can we get more specific at all?

 

[Emerikol]

Then perhaps as a term it's outdated?

Your second paragraph here is how I've always understood it. Perhaps because a lot of times it's also used to describe works of fiction like novels or movies? It would seem to have the same application for RPGs or just about any other kind of fiction.

I've honestly only heard "living world" as an approach as opposed to a goal when discussing in this thread, and a couple of others like it. I don't think it's so ubiquitous that its meaning is apparent.

It strikes me that striving for the sort of living world I like is not something you've ever cared a lot about. My own experience though is that I can use the term in my circles and it is instantly understood what I mean.

No, not just like fiction and protagonism because those words already have definitions, and those are the definitions being used. Fiction means "make believe" and always has, and that's how it has been used in this discussion. No new gaming specific definition is needed for either one. So that's why when people say "I don't know what you mean by fiction" all anyone should have to say is "I mean make believe stuff" and we're good.

You can keep belaboring this point and perhaps fiction is not the most divisive of the lot but no all of your gamist uses of words are not perfect English equivalents. It's just not true. You've come to understand these terms as you do because they are the meta language in your circles and that is fine.

So no. it is not the same. Living world is a phrase that has no specific definition prior to gaming, and the definition for gaming seems pretty nebulous.

It's not that nebulous. I've defined it for you many times now.

Why is it unfortunate if the GM doesn't know what has happened in a nation three hundred miles away?

I think you're assuming that Prep is always good and the more prep the more good. But why?

Surely, from the players' perspective, if they ask you what's going on in the far off city, and you answer them based on your copious notes, your answer is likely not going to be any "better" than if they ask me and I make it up on the fly.

That is the point. From our experience, it is not true that people who make it up on the fly provide as consistent and immersive world. Just the opposite. My own experience, anecdotal just like yours, is that such worlds are trite and lack depth. Now I've never met you so I am not saying you world is that way. I'm saying that is my experience of people who put no effort into their worlds.

If the far off city hasn't mattered to play in any way, then how does it matter if the GM has prepared anything there?

I think the only way this matters is based on expectation. Which will largely depend on the game and the goals of play. So an old school dungeon delve, sure, having a map and key is going to make sense. This is the purpose of the GM notes for that kind of game.

This is the most trivial case not the most significant case. It trivializes the goals of living world proponents.

But in my 5E game, I'm not really worried about skilled play in the sense of old school dungeon delves; we're not worried about inventory and spell loadout in order to navigate a defined dungeon space. It's not the focus of play.

So in my 5E game, I don't worry about my players knowing if I've made something up on the fly or if I've prepared it ahead of time. Why would I? It's made up either way. What does the timing of its creation really matter, unless it impacts the goals of play?

Well you may be the grandmaster of improv. You may be the smartest man I've ever not met. I'm just saying I don't see it pulled off successfully other than as a theoretical. So practically I've never seen a GM improv most things and have anything but a shambles of a world that I can't believe in at all. So I'm not arguing with you theoretically. I am arguing with you practically.

It sounds to me like you're blaming me for the mistake of others.

I would say that I received pushback on my use of fiction to mean make believe because of some unfounded fear that it could mean a novel or work of literature.

Oh, and because it's snooty.

I was just trying to point out that the terms, and you are hardly the only person on here arguing terms so don't take everything as directly solely at you every time, are gamified terms.

So you would say that the purpose of a GM's notes in a Living World style is to provide a setting for the players to explore with their characters? Does that sum it up?

No. I gave you my definition in previous posts. I would say that an outcome of my approach is that the world is more believable and immersive for some people. I target those people for my campaigns and we have fun. If someone doesn't care about a living world, that would be a clue to me that such a person may not be a good fit for my campaign. That doesn't mean they are bad people, that they are roleplaying wrong, or that preferences lack validity. They just like different things.

I suppose we could delve deep into psychology and perhaps even philosophy to try and figure out why we prefer things as we do. Not sure it would bear any fruit other than acrimony.