What is the point of GM's notes?

[Ovinomancer]

Not merely bodily movements, no. The PCs killed Turnik Steeltear, ending his (and the Masked Ones') reign of terror over the village of Callallah. Mo talked the city council of Pelsoreen into altering the city's laws on debt-slavery more than they'd originally intended to. There will be no more Masked Ones created; there are explicitly a few squads of them out in the world, but they're limited in number and lifespan. I will (though I haven't yet) re-write the player-facing document for Pelsoreen to reflect the change in debt-slavery.

My dislike of AP-style play is, I think, well-documented by this point.

I don't fridge characters (or other important things) the players create in their backstories (see below) without talking to the players, first. There's been a discussion of whether killing the PC's brother (in your example) is an uncool move by the GM; I'm not a big fan, but I think established expectations at the table matter the most for determining cool/uncool, here.

So, in the examples I gave above, the PC/s pretty much decided what they wanted to happen, and made it happen. Turnik Steeltear and the Masked Ones were connected to a character's backstory; Mo decided the changes the Pelsoreen City Council were implementing weren't enough, and made a concerted effort to end the city's practice of debt-slavery by force of persuasion.

In the other campaign I'm running, a player established that there was a monastery/dojo in New Arvai called the Chiaroscuro Temple (I helped some with the name and the concept, as part of negotiating it into the world I'm running) as part of her backstory, and established that there had been an incursion from the Hells there. The history of the Temple goes way back, and the Hellish incursion plays well with the basic character of New Arvai. Another player, in his character's backstory, established a small town in a mountain pass. That town has been there for centuries.

So: In play, the players in my campaigns can change the future of the world but probably not the past; in chargen, the players can change the past of the world, but probably not directly the future.

I think, again, that the difference here is authorities -- yes, your players change things, but only can do so with your approval. This isn't a dig, it's a very important distinction and allows for types of play that use this tool to maintain coherency in themes and vision and events. It's exactly how I wield my authority when running games that have the GM role set up with this authority. This is contrasted by games where the GM does not get approval authority -- players can introduce things that the GM can, at best, challenge through the mechanics and, if the player succeeds, the player can assert this over the GM's desires. Of course, if running this kind of game, the GM should be leaving those desires at the door so this isn't a problem.

As much as you allow and even encourage the players to have input into your games (and I'm the same way), it's more of a benevolent dictator situations -- you can always say no and that's within the structure of the game and the social contract.

I think, fundamentally, this is the difference -- can the GM say 'no', where can they say 'no', and for what reasons can they say 'no.'

 

[Ovinomancer]

Random rolls... I use Vornheim to build out parts of the ruined city of Morthengaust in my game and it's done on the fly, not before the players make characters. There are numerous tools like this for sandbox play... are these considered DM notes as well?

I would say so.

 

[Imaro]

I also talked about sandbox hexcrawls. I feel the term applies well to both. You can't just ignore the parts of what I say that don't support your claims and declare victory.

Meant to address this as well... are your sandbox hexcrawls and AP railroads run the same?

 

[Imaro]

I would say so.

How if neither I nor the players know what will be rolled and thus what the fiction will be?

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, that's one definition that's been put forth, and I get it. I expect that's very much @Bedrockgames take on it, or very close to something like that.

But how is that achieved?

For instance, one GM may actively track what's happening with a given NPC during the time in between interactions that NPC has with the PCs. So let's say 10 sessions go by where the PCs don't interact with him. What has he been up to?

It may vary by game and by GM, but here are some possible answers:

• GM examines what happens in play and with other NPCs or Factions each week, and then decides how that has impacted the NPC in quesiton- he does this each week for each NPC or Faction "in play"
• GM waits until the PCs interact with the NPC again, and then looks at what has happened over the past 10 sessions, and decides how that has impacted the NPC in question- so he's not tracking it weekly, just at the time it becomes relevant
• GM establishes a goal for the NPC, or perhaps some other kind of event (maybe the NPC is being hunted by another faction, and may get caught) and decides on a weekly basis how this goal/event plays out and how much closer it is to happening
• GM established a goal/event for the NPC and then when the PCs interact with him again, decides what the previous 10 sessions have meant for that NPC, and establishes it accordingly
• GM makes weekly rolls to determine the progress of the goal/event as above and does this each week for each NPC/Faction "in play"
• GM waits until the NPC comes back on screen and then makes a roll to determine what has happened over the past 10 sessions and where that has left the NPC

These methods are all different, but their goal is the same- to present some sense that things have happened when the PCs have not been directly involved. There are other methods as well, I'm sure, but I think that's enough to make my point.

Most of the games I've played/GMed use maybe 2 of these methods, or suggest 2 or 3 as options. They all seek the same thing, but are different methods. Deciding which to use is likely just a matter of personal preference or what makes the most sense for the system being used, or perhaps the participants involved in the game.

This is why I think the use of "living world" as a style of game rather than a goal is kind of useless except by those who have accepted is as shorthand for something more specific. Because it applies to a game like Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World as readily as it does to D&D or more traditional sandbox games. And I expect that is not its intended use.

Yes. There are different methods by which the living world is achieved. Some DMs may decide everything. The DM decides that an earthquake is going to hit Amn 6 weeks after the campaign begins. He decides that a solar eclipse will happen on the 88th day. He decides the response of NPCs, etc. Other DMs may make charts. An event will happen on the 88th day and he rolls on his chart and an assassination of a ruler comes up, and then he picks or determines the ruler randomly, etc.

Regardless of the method used, the result is the same. A world where events and NPCs do things independent of the PCs, but which they are intended to learn about later. I say intended to learn about, because game play sometimes prevents the information from reaching them.

I don't view a living world as a style, though. It's something that is applied to other styles. You can have a living breathing world that exists in a sandbox. It can exist in a linear game. It can exist in other styles. It's a goal applied to various styles. The method of reaching the goal is just what varies. Goals quite often have different ways to reach them. Three companies may have the goal of getting their product into the hands of 100k people in 3 months. They can each use a different method of achieving that goal.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But this doesn't describe the playstyle that I and others in the thread are speaking to.

Of course it doesn't -- it's not a playstyle description. It's a description of a specific aspect of play. And, if this doesn't describe what you're doing, then I'd love to hear what it is you are doing -- because this is exactly what I do, and what's happened in many games I've been in and run over the last 30 years. The first game I played in I'd describe as a highly detailed sandbox, and that's a lot of what happened. "What's over here in the swamp?" "You've heard these rumors, but if you want to know, you have to go there." "Okay, we go there." "Here's what's in the swamp."

This is, of course, a highly elided and simplified version of play, but it shows that what's being described by "play to find out the GM's conception of the fiction" is right on. I honestly have trouble with arguments that this doesn't happen. I think this is getting mixed up with the GM just telling the players what happens -- ie, forcing outcomes -- but it's not. A classic dungeon delve involved exactly this and cannot work at all without it.

It was about that person's subjective thoughts on the issue... Not yours. But ok you score a point... I guess.

Not trying to score points. If the question is only valid for @pemerton, and only because of what you think @pemerton thinks, then it's a question about @pemerton, not about what the terms mean. I guess it's valid if you want to question @pemerton, but that seems to be implying a lack of good faith rather than an engagement in discussion.

Numerous posters have stated their objections and why to the nomenclature. Me stating them over again isn't going to suddenly impart clarity or acceptance on your part. Again seems like a time for me to disengage with you about said subject.

No, they've stated objections to the phrasing. I haven't seen someone propose a different phrasing for the play that's being described. Well, you're denying this play exists at all, which is very odd, because I don't see what you can do otherwise and maintain the other things asserted -- like having a detailed setting. How do the players learn about the setting details without the GM telling them? I mean... yeah, don't get the problem here. I can see that the directness of the phrasing may be offputting, in which case please propose something more palatable that also still clearly outlines the phenomenon.

 

[Ovinomancer]

How if neither I nor the players know what will be rolled and thus what the fiction will be?

Where did the table come from?

 

[prabe]

I think, again, that the difference here is authorities -- yes, your players change things, but only can do so with your approval. This isn't a dig, it's a very important distinction and allows for types of play that use this tool to maintain coherency in themes and vision and events. It's exactly how I wield my authority when running games that have the GM role set up with this authority. This is contrasted by games where the GM does not get approval authority -- players can introduce things that the GM can, at best, challenge through the mechanics and, if the player succeeds, the player can assert this over the GM's desires. Of course, if running this kind of game, the GM should be leaving those desires at the door so this isn't a problem.

As much as you allow and even encourage the players to have input into your games (and I'm the same way), it's more of a benevolent dictator situations -- you can always say no and that's within the structure of the game and the social contract.

I think, fundamentally, this is the difference -- can the GM say 'no', where can they say 'no', and for what reasons can they say 'no.'

The backstory I agree is ... at least negotiated ;-) and I don't deny that I have last word on the setting side of it (I think the players have last word on character side, if that distinction is clear).

The in-game events ... for me to nullify those--for me to have someone else (not previously established in the fiction) pick up with making Masked Ones after the PCs killed Steeltear and destroyed the Forge of Masks, or for me to decide that the Pelsoreen City Council listened to that impassioned, eloquent speech and was unmoved--I guess technically a DM could have done so, but I don't think I could have. Call that a distinction between the published rules and either the table's expectations or my expectations of myself.

 

[Imaro]

Where did the table come from?

The Vornheim book. But aren't we concerned with whether the fiction is generated by the GM or not. Another example is in a PBtA game does this mean that when a GM is creating a consequence the players are playing to find out what's in his head/notes as well concerning the fiction?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes. There are different methods by which the living world is achieved. Some DMs may decide everything. The DM decides that an earthquake is going to hit Amn 6 weeks after the campaign begins. He decides that a solar eclipse will happen on the 88th day. He decides the response of NPCs, etc. Other DMs may make charts. An event will happen on the 88th day and he rolls on his chart and an assassination of a ruler comes up, and then he picks or determines the ruler randomly, etc.

Regardless of the method used, the result is the same. A world where events and NPCs do things independent of the PCs, but which they are intended to learn about later. I say intended to learn about, because game play sometimes prevents the information from reaching them.

I don't view a living world as a style, though. It's something that is applied to other styles. You can have a living breathing world that exists in a sandbox. It can exist in a linear game. It can exist in other styles. It's a goal applied to various styles. The method of reaching the goal is just what varies. Goals quite often have different ways to reach them. Three companies may have the goal of getting their product into the hands of 100k people in 3 months. They can each use a different method of achieving that goal.

Yes, this has been my point. The term is being used as an adjective rather than a noun. As a means rather than an end.

For which it stinks.

Unless it has become an agreed upon shorthand by those to whom you're speaking. Which seems to be the way BRG intends....but if I'm not one of those folks, then the term is vague and meaningless, and much harder to pin down than "the fiction".

But either way, I think you and I aren't really disagreeing, so I'll leave this topic at that.