How "alive" should the world be - outside the scope of the PCs?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Knowing my character that is not exactly what I would expect to be seeing if he died.

“...except for L’Ffreydd, who is looking out across a dark, dismal landscape of blasted, shattered rocks and withered trees that smells of ozone, ash, fresh-spilled blood and sh...”

 

[pemerton]

One common piece of advise to DMs - make sure the PCs experience the world as a living world.

This generally means make sure the PCs see that the world exists outside of them - things happen and progress whether the PCs are involved or not.

The question then, is how far should this be taken?

Well, what is the point - from the point of view of gameplay - of the "living world"?

I've quoted the following post because it seems to offer one answer to this:

The world in my campaign is always moving. If the players fail/ignore a plot point, they will encounter the consequences at some point. Case in point, the players were in a harbor city, when they noticed one of their npc allies meeting with some sinister looking women.

-They spied on the suspicious characters, and noticed them receiving a mysterious box from the npc. They were unable to stop the villains from getting away with the box. The box contained the skeletal remains of a notorious pirate captain. The villains were able to find them due to the players removing the bones from an unscryable location, and giving them a proper burial, at the request of the pirate captain's daughter.

Result: Many days pass. Meanwhile, a powerful necromancer acquires the skeletal remains from her minions, and reanimates the pirate captain. They now have an undead pirate captain to deal with.

The point of the "living world" here seems to be as a way for the GM to direct the content of the shared fiction. If you want to do that, as a GM, then the "living world" is one way to do it.

If, as a GM, you don't want to do that, then what is the living world for?

 

[Mort]

Well, what is the point - from the point of view of gameplay - of the "living world"?

The point, at least the way I see it, is a potential tool to provide a better play experience for your players. At the end of the day, that's generally the goal. The Payoff being, at least in theory, giving the players a better overall immersive experience. Does it do that? It can, to a point.

Now the example I listed, isn't actually a great one - it's blunt, heavy handed, and unlikely to lead to a better experience (unless the goal is adventures in the afterlife). But I guess I was going for setting an extreme. I wanted to see where people would take that extreme.

The point of the "living world" here seems to be as a way for the GM to direct the content of the shared fiction. If you want to do that, as a GM, then the "living world" is one way to do it.

If, as a GM, you don't want to do that, then what is the living world for?

Well direct the content, in this case, through the action or inaction of the players. Perhaps even force the content - to state this in an even more negative light.

I guess the point here was to see differing views on if the original point (living world as a campaign boon) and to what degree that applies before it becomes a liability. There have certainly been many good replies.




Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[pemerton]

The point, at least the way I see it, is a potential tool to provide a better play experience for your players. At the end of the day, that's generally the goal. The Payoff being, at least in theory, giving the players a better overall immersive experience. Does it do that? It can, to a point.

Speaking just for myself, I find the best way to immerse the players is to follow their lead, but push them as hard as I can in doing so.

Whereas the immersion of the "living, breathing world" can seem - to me, at least - very close to the immersion of the players being told a story by the GM.

 

[Mort]

Speaking just for myself, I find the best way to immerse the players is to follow their lead, but push them as hard as I can in doing so.

Whereas the immersion of the "living, breathing world" can seem - to me, at least - very close to the immersion of the players being told a story by the GM.

I think this is, indeed, a possible problem, and one I've unfortunately seen (I was a player and ran for the hills once I realized that we the PCs were merely an inconvenience the DM tolerated to the story playing out in his head). The last thing players want is to be passengers on the DMs story train.

To combat this the DM must ensureplayers actually see their characters' actions have impact, major and minor, on the game.

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To combat this the DM must ensureplayers actually see their characters' actions have impact, major and minor, on the game.

Abso-flippin’-lutely!

 

[Tony Vargas]

If, as a GM, you don't want to do that, then what is the living world for?

When I started advocating the living world style, back on the gleemax boards, the point was to cope with the gulfs among the class tiers, particularly the first two, specifically, the Wizard & Sorcerer.

 

[pemerton]

When I started advocating the living world style, back on the gleemax boards, the point was to cope with the gulfs among the class tiers, particularly the first two, specifically, the Wizard & Sorcerer.

Can you elaborate? This sounds like you're talking about a 5e-style "GM empowered" game, but maybe I've misunderstood.

 

[TwoSix]

“...except for L’Ffreydd, who is looking out across a dark, dismal landscape of blasted, shattered rocks and withered trees that smells of ozone, ash, fresh-spilled blood and sh...”

Sent to New Jersey, then? A fate worse than death!

 

[Blue]

I *love* big dynamic worlds. A long-time DM I had in my HS/college years would run like 6 different campaigns set in the same world. There would always be things happening that we would hear about but not be involved in, and it really made the world feel alive. And there would definitely be repercussions of other's adventures that we'd have to deal with - good and bad.

How this has informed my DMing style is that I always have a bunch of plots going. Some are local adventures, some are larger character arcs and campaign arcs. The party can pursue anything they want - and often go off in directions I haven't foreseen and I need to wing it. There are always plots that aren't pursued. Sometimes they grow and the characters deal with them later, sometimes they grow and the players never deal with them, sometimes other adventures deal with them. (The last is a good candidate when the players indicate they aren't interested.)

So in the case of the hermit destroying the world, I'd have an NPC party deal with it and have them get a lot of fame and become rivals for the PCs (or set it up for the PCs to become rivals with them).

But yeah, I always throw more plots at the party then they can explore at any one time, the world is big and complex. And it moves outside of just them - makes it feel like it lives and breathes.