D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, as long as whatever caused the condition was within the actual fiction, I would (likely) consider it to be OK. If it's due to GM fiat, then I wouldn't be OK with it.

Does "the mechanics produced it as a consequence of NPC action" land as "within the actual fiction"? (I'm not being snarky, there seems some ambiguity there to my eyes).

 

[Old Fezziwig]

How exactly does that say anything to the question of in-character ahead-of-time preparation for a situation, in order to mitigate or bypass an easily-foreseeable obstacle or problem that the GM might present?

Or does the gear listed on the character sheet mean nothing in this game?

Or is thinking ahead and pre-planning not allowed?

BW doesn't allow for avoiding rolls through the deployment of gear and resources. The benefit of planning ahead is improving your chances of success (+1D or more) or making things easier (-1 Ob or more).

 

[robertsconley]

If you don't allow the circumstances in the setting to influence, or in some cases outright dictate, GM adjudication, then IMO you're not playing Living World. You're playing backdrop to PC protagonism. Imaginary things absolutely can (and IMO should) participate in causal process, because they are a major factor in determining what decisions are made.

This is really well said, and I would like to connect it back to the core assumption behind my Living World sandbox approach, especially for the casual gamer who might be reading along.

What you’re describing is how I handle adjudication. The idea that the circumstances of the setting, what has already been established, do not just provide background detail, they actually shape and sometimes dictate what happens next. When I say the world has causal continuity, I do not mean it is real in any metaphysical sense. I mean that once something exists in the world, it behaves as if it is real. Players can rely on that. The referee cannot just handwave it away. A locked gate is locked. A patrol has a set route. A drought causes real shortages. These may be imaginary elements, but they carry consequences because the world treats them as facts.

This is the core of the Living World sandbox. The players make choices in a world that behaves consistently, even when they are not present. The referee is not there to sculpt their story but to keep the logic of the world in motion based on what is already true.

One thing worth adding, for anyone thinking about how this plays out in practice, is that the referee is not deciding outcomes on the fly. The current state of the world shapes their rulings, the consequences of past events, and the procedures they have committed to. That is what keeps the game from feeling arbitrary. It is not that the referee has no control, but that their control is grounded in a consistent framework. That is what gives weight to player choices and makes the results feel earned.

All of this follows from my core assumption: once something is true in the world, it stays true until something in the world changes it. It is treated as real because we choose to treat it as real. The consequences follow because we choose to follow the consequences. Taken together, this creates a distinct style of campaign and play that stands on its own merits. It also provides a foundation for players to judge whether the referee is being fair and reasonable as the campaign unfolds.

 

[pemerton]

How exactly does that say anything to the question of in-character ahead-of-time preparation for a situation, in order to mitigate or bypass an easily-foreseeable obstacle or problem that the GM might present?

Or does the gear listed on the character sheet mean nothing in this game?

Or is thinking ahead and pre-planning not allowed?

It answers your question about whether there is success on something that matters without a roll. There is not.

Gear is very important in the game. It establishes fictional position; and can also be the basis for an advantage die.

EDIT: @Old Fezziwig snuck in just ahead of me!

 

[zakael19]

Sure, I am not saying there is anything wrong with the mechanic, or that something like that would happen in D&D without some adjustment. I suppose if the player were legitimately feeling that self doubt, that would be a way for you to have it in a game where there is more 1-1 between the player and the characters thinking. My only point was I think by any reasonable definition, removing a players control of thoughts or action is an interruption of agency. Like I said thought, that doesn't mean a game doing that in one case, is automatically low agency (and context might even mean it is enhancing it somehow). But what I was pushing back against was a statement made earlier where the players ability to control the character simply weren't even a consideration in the definition of agency because all that was being considered was game play

I hate to re-litigate the definition, but generally agency is meant to mean "ability to move towards a goal/specific result." This sort of deep-held control seems to less be about agency and more about, well, control or OC-style character-conception. It doesnt really tell us anything about said character's ability to achieve materially important goals?

Like, say we've house ruled that no mind-altering effects happen because somebody finds them uncomfortable. They have increased control over their character's fictional state, but that tells us nothing about how much agency they have during play - a player with total control of their character's words and espoused internal state in strict AP play with the GM narrating a story has precious little agency over the totality of the game.

And that's probably where we just break down. I don't think it's "meta agency" or whatever to have the ability and knowledge to materially effect steps towards a player/character goal. Eg: the Judge in the example above wanted to find the bones of the Quiet Twins. He can look at the mechanics of the game and take material steps towards achieving that goal both within and without the fiction: "hm, they're undead, right? I'm going to consult the Chronicle to see what my predecessor's records are on the Crossroads and ceremonies thereof" and we know that when he does this, it triggers the move Know Things, which on a "hit" will give information that will materially progress towards that goal.

 

[zakael19]

One thing worth adding, for anyone thinking about how this plays out in practice, is that the referee is not deciding outcomes on the fly. The current state of the world shapes their rulings, the consequences of past events, and the procedures they have committed to. That is what keeps the game from feeling arbitrary. It is not that the referee has no control, but that their control is grounded in a consistent framework. That is what gives weight to player choices and makes the results feel earned.

When you say "not deciding outcomes on the fly" here, and the rest of this, does that mean that when you need to rule/decide on something (are there bandits here? what has happened to the town since the adventurers last came through? what dangers threaten the realm? etc) you're referring to hard notes / tables / etc that tell you in a broad-brush map & key style way? Or is it a heuristic of "last time we were here they saw X, but per my living world procedures Y party has done Z, so I need to describe the changes?" Some combination?

I know you've said that you record all your rulings on a shared document type thing, so taking that level of consistency and integrity of GMing as given.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I hate to re-litigate the definition, but generally agency is meant to mean "ability to move towards a goal/specific result."

I wouldn't agree with this. Especially in a role-playing game. I mean it might be part of it, but I think of agency as being able to act and make meaningful choices. I mean we can discuss what it means for an RPG. But part of the problem with this conversation is you guys start out with a definition and assume it is the default. There is room for discussion of course. I am wary of definitional arguments for this reason, because a lot of definitions are imperfect when you are talking about an idea like this as it related to a hobby. So I think trying to suss out what people mean when they say agency in an RPG, and then exploring different ways it is used is a much more productive approach. But one thing that is clear to me is: for probably most gamers, they would say at the bare minimum control of your characters thoughts and actions are essential to agency.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Like, say we've house ruled that no mind-altering effects happen because somebody finds them uncomfortable. They have increased control over their character's fictional state, but that tells us nothing about how much agency they have during play - a player with total control of their character's words and espoused internal state in strict AP play with the GM narrating a story has precious little agency over the totality of the game.

I am not advocating for that at all. And I think people complaining about mind control effects, especially magic ones, isn't really worth it. But I am just saying a definition of agency that excludes these two elements is flawed

 

[pemerton]

You're affirming the idea that a fictional world has no causal continuity apart from the decisions of its author. That lines up with the view that all fiction is shaped entirely by authorial intent, where meaning and consequence only exist because someone decides they should.

No. My point is quite simple: imaginary things do not have causal impacts.

Real acts of imagination - mental states in people's minds - of course can have causal impacts. And some of those may be unintended.

In contrast, my position treats fictional continuity as if it were real, within the bounds of the system and procedures that define it. This includes causal chains that persist even when the author or referee isn’t actively focusing on them.

I have ideas about the fiction in my Classic Traveller game - for instance, about the Imperium's desires to stop the proliferation of psionic ability, technologies, and culture.

But if I were to drop dead today, there would be no continuity! My imagination would die with me.

Now if you're saying that part of what you imagination includes causal connections occurring in the fiction, that's true but hardly unique to "living world" GMing. And imagining causation doesn't mean that the imagined thing itself actually causes anything.

These are irreconcilable viewpoints. The disagreement isn’t just about technique, it’s about what fiction is and how it functions during play. From those different starting points, our reasoning naturally diverges. Your arguments make sense given your stance. Mine follow from the assumption that the world, once established, is consistent and causally autonomous.

For those reading along, this is similar to the historical divide between the Romantics and the Realists in literature. Romantics shaped their stories around emotional truth and artistic vision. Realists grounded theirs in consistent, observable detail, even when the results were less dramatic. Both produced compelling works, but they started from different assumptions about what fiction is supposed to do. The two approaches can’t easily be reconciled because they answer different creative questions.

I think we have different views about how to use fiction during play. But fiction doesn't itself cause anything. Because it's not real - it's fiction!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Imaginary things cannot have actual causal effects. By definition, they are imaginary, and hence have no more real effects than do <spoiler alert> Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

The GM can imagine circumstances in the setting, and on the basis reach a view as to what should happen. That's a method of making a decision. Authors use it a lot.

So, I think it is legitimate to discuss the process and the content of what those imaginings are, and what constitutes fiction that meets the needs of the participants. But, like you, I am not in favor of confusing the issue by talking about 'causality' or 'reasons' WITHIN the fiction. It is fine for Micah or whomever to say "we want to be able to describe how we imagine something happening in the fiction" but it is vital not to lose sight of the fact that there are many potentially valid ways to do that, unlike reality where only one set of facts exists.