What is the point of GM's notes?

[hawkeyefan]

I personally share some clocks, but not others. In the games I have seen John Harper run online it seems he has some hidden clocks and others he is more transparent about

I thought so, but couldn’t remember if it was specifically stated in the book. I thought I remembered Harper mentioning that he had some clocks that the players didn't know about.

I share the majority, but I do keep some unknown.

So these are things that influence and are influenced by the players. Basically everything the GM creates is for PC or from PC stimuli.

Do GMs usually create stuff that’s not meant for the PCs?

I would think anything that a GM crafts has to be crafted with at least the possibility that the PCs will engage with it. If they wind up not, then so be it, but it’s there for them.

 

[pemerton]

I think that the issues with "living world" are due to people having slightly different ideas of what it entails. At its core, though, the primary thing that makes a word living or not is that some NPC activities, events, etc., happen offscreen and the PCs learn about those things after the fact. The world goes on outside of the view of the PCs.

Let's unpack this.

First, in all RPGing the PCs, ie imaginary people that are elements of the shared fiction, learn about things after they occur. In KotB the PCs learn that humanoids have settled in the Caves of Chaos (past tense italicised). In the 2nd ed AD&D WoG module Five Shall be One, the PCs learn that some magical Viking swords have been scattered across the northlands (past tense italicised). In one of the Cthulhu Dark sessions that I GMed the butler PC had learned that his master was missing (past tense italicised).

Second, in each of the examples I've given in the previous paragraph, and in innumerable others across the history of RPGing, those events happened offscreen in the sense that they are established via one participant's stipulation of setting or backstory, rather than as the product of actual play at the table in the form of action declarations and resolution.

Third, from the previous two paragraphs it is impossible to tell whether the games described were played "story now", or were railroads, or "living worlds", or something else. Even the most abject railroad, like a hard railroad approach to the DL modules, involves NPC activities, events etc that happen offscreen (such as the movement of the dragon armies) and which the PCs learn about after the fact (eg by encountering refugees or whatever).

To get from what @Maxperson has said to something like a standard sandbox we need to add in things like: the GM updates his/her notes on a periodic basis; that updating mostly takes the form of bringing forward the "present" of the imagined setting; this is done by adding new information about what various NPCs etc are doing; this new information will be drawn upon for the purposes of framing, and also in the course of resolving players' declared actions for their PCs. There's probably more to be said, but I think what I've said is a start.

 

[pemerton]

Any of these details might be able to be revealed to players by them asking questions, like "I observe the square from the shadows and see if the guards leave any gaps in their patrol routes," which prompts the GM to provide their answer to this question. Or investigate guards to see if they're bribable, which prompts the GM to tell the players what they think about this.

I'm curious about whether players can engage in observation like this in Blades? What would happen? I'm very fuzzy on these non-traditional games, but here's what I imagine based on following some of these conversations. The player can't just fish for information with no outcome in mind. So instead of saying, "I observe the guards to see if I notice anything useful," they could say, "I secretly observe the guards and discover a gap in their patrol route which I then exploit." Something like that?

I haven't played BitD and don't know it well enough to answer your question in relation to it. In Apocalypse World and Dungeon World, the player can read a charged situation or discern realities and on a successful check is able to ask questions of the GM (eg who is in charge here? or what is the biggest danger here?) and the GM has to answer these "truthfully" ie in such a way as to establish fiction that is then honoured. The player receives a bonus if then acting on that information.

In Cortex+ Heroic, to pick a quite different system, the player can declare an action that establishes an Asset which is a bonus die in the pool. In one of our sessions the scout PC climbed the steading wall to gain an Asset Overview of the Setting. I imagine that I narrated some stuff that he could see, but that is essentially colour - it will only matter in play if I spend Doom Pool dice to build it into a Scene Distinction or to add a bonus die to a NPC pool. (Unlike D&D, victory in Cortex+ Heroic doesn't depend on attrition and so it can be rational to use actions to build one's pool so as to enable a one-shot victory.)

In Burning Wheel, the player needs an intent to his/her task: so if observing the guards some intention has to be stated, such as to see if there is a gap in their patrol route that I can exploit. "Anything useful" is in my view a bit to vague as an intent.

When I've been a player in a traditional game, a significant amount of the fun has been in gathering information. Which seems to be an effort to transferring as much of the GM's conception to the players as possible before declaring a high-stakes action.

This is what I would describe as finding out the content of the GM's notes. Or finding out the GM's conception of the fiction. I've played and GMed a fair bit of this sort of RPGing, though not so much in the past 15 or so years.

 

[Maxperson]

First, in all RPGing the PCs, ie imaginary people that are elements of the shared fiction, learn about things after they occur. In KotB the PCs learn that humanoids have settled in the Caves of Chaos (past tense italicised). In the 2nd ed AD&D WoG module Five Shall be One, the PCs learn that some magical Viking swords have been scattered across the northlands (past tense italicised). In one of the Cthulhu Dark sessions that I GMed the butler PC had learned that his master was missing (past tense italicised).

Yes, but in the case of a living world, the players know that it has happened after gameplay started and at a time in the fiction after their PCs started adventuring. It gives the players a sense that the world is moving along outside of their bubble.

Second, in each of the examples I've given in the previous paragraph, and in innumerable others across the history of RPGing, those events happened offscreen in the sense that they are established via one participant's stipulation of setting or backstory, rather than as the product of actual play at the table in the form of action declarations and resolution.

Sure, but the swords might have been scattered centuries ago in the fiction and the humanoids may have settled the Caves of Chaos a decade before the PC's started adventuring.

Third, from the previous two paragraphs it is impossible to tell whether the games described were played "story now", or were railroads, or "living worlds", or something else. Even the most abject railroad, like a hard railroad approach to the DL modules, involves NPC activities, events etc that happen offscreen (such as the movement of the dragon armies) and which the PCs learn about after the fact (eg by encountering refugees or whatever).

I'm not sure what that proves. Players in a living world are going to know whether it was a living world or not, and really, that's all that matters. I'm also not sure why you included two playstyles along with the living world. Story now and railroads are playstyles. Living world is a goal that can be applied to various playstyles.

To get from what @Maxperson has said to something like a standard sandbox we need to add in things like: the GM updates his/her notes on a periodic basis; that updating mostly takes the form of bringing forward the "present" of the imagined setting; this is done by adding new information about what various NPCs etc are doing; this new information will be drawn upon for the purposes of framing, and also in the course of resolving players' declared actions for their PCs. There's probably more to be said, but I think what I've said is a start.

What I said can be applied to sandbox, railroad, linear games, and probably some types of story now. You don't need to get to a sandbox from what I said, since I'm talking about the goal of having a living world, not a playstyle.

 

[Aldarc]

And there my own personal preference comes in: I'd far rather do as much of the work ahead of time as I can - ideally before the campaign even begins - such that during play I can somewhat sit back and enjoy running the game in the moment without having to worry about remembering and-or writing down any more than I asbolutely have to.

Your personal preference is valid, but it's obviously not the concern, focus, or preference for those that adopt a more story now ("notes later") approach. If someone prefers prep for this reason or is not as able with "notes later," then I probably wouldn't suggest that these other games would be better suited for them. I would still suggest that they try playing or running in such a game, because you can learn a lot from doing so and can occasionally surprise yourself by how easy it can be. I also would like to stress is that just because the story now approach sits out of your own personal preferences or strengths/weaknesses, it obviously doesn't mean that "story now" approaches don't work or are invalid.

Yeah, that Stonetop model would never work for me for anything longer than a one-off in that I always assume two things about any ongoing setting: one, there's other adventurers in the setting beyond just the PCs and two, there's going to be some character recruitment/turnover and the replacements have to come from somewhere.

So I can tell you that in Stonetop you would have to get rid of one of your core assumptions: D&D-style adventurers. Stonetop is not about a wandering band of murderhobo, grave-robbing adventurers or mercenaries, but, rather, it focuses on a small cadre of adventurous characters living in the village of Stonetop (pop. ~300) who are trying to improve the livelihood of Stonetop and their fellow kin, friends, and associates in the village. The successes and failures of the PCs will impact the growth, prosperity, and problems that Stonetop will face. It's referred to as "hearth fantasy."

Incidentally, Stonetop was a spin-off of D&D 4e that was converted to Dungeon World that then gradually became its own thing, though still closely hewing to DW. You can tell particularly with some of the classes that have been reskinned (e.g., Warlord -> Marshal) and the gods (e.g., Erathis -> Aratis; Pelor -> Helior).

As for the West Marches scenario, it'd be cool if the oppositional force faced by one party is in fact one of the players' other parties!

I'm not sure why you seem to relish pvp in your roleplaying games.

 

[pemerton]

This whole thread feels like a veiled attack on the intelligence of posters people disagree with.

Interesting. To me it feels like a handful of posters, particularly you, object to any word or phrase anyone else comes up with - GM's notes, fiction (shared or otherwise), authorship, etc - that makes it clear without equivocation or metaphor that the fiction in RPGing has to be invented, and that in your favoured playstyle it is the GM who is doing the bulk of that invention.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, but in the case of a living world, the players know that it has happened after gameplay started and at a time in the fiction after their PCs started adventuring. It gives the players a sense that the world is moving along outside of their bubble.

This happens in all RPGing that I'm aware of.

For instance, in my Burning Wheel game the PCs heard rumours of a pending marriage of the Gynarch of Hardby to Jabal, leader of a sorcerous cabal. This occurred while they spent time resting and recuperating in a ruined tower in the Abor-Alz. There was no news of this wedding at the earlier period, in play, when the PCs were in Hardby.

Does this make my BW game a "living world"? It certainly doesn't use the prep methods that eg @Emerikol or @Bedrock games has discussed. My memory is a bit hazy, but I think I made up this idea of a marriage when the PCs dealt with some travelling merchants while staying in their tower. The arrival of the merchants was itself the result of a successful Circles check by one of the players for his PC.

Living world is a goal that can be applied to various playstyles.

Is it? @hawkeyefan and @Ovinomancer have asserted as much in this thread. @Emerikol and @Bedrockgames have denied as much, and they claim to be experts on "living world" RPGing. Who should I believe?

 

[Maxperson]

This happens in all RPGing that I'm aware of.

For instance, in my Burning Wheel game the PCs heard rumours of a pending marriage of the Gynarch of Hardby to Jabal, leader of a sorcerous cabal. This occurred while they spent time resting and recuperating in a ruined tower in the Abor-Alz. There was no news of this wedding at the earlier period, in play, when the PCs were in Hardby.

Does this make my BW game a "living world"? It certainly doesn't use the prep methods that eg @Emerikol or @Bedrock games has discussed. My memory is a bit hazy, but I think I made up this idea of a marriage when the PCs dealt with some travelling merchants while staying in their tower. The arrival of the merchants was itself the result of a successful Circles check by one of the players for his PC.

No it doesn't make it a living world. You don't really prep much ahead of time, so that rumor was introduced for their benefit(ie into the PC bubble), rather than as part of the world moving on its own. The players, knowing that they are playing Burning Wheel are aware of that, which alters the feel of the game.

Is it? @hawkeyefan and @Ovinomancer have asserted as much in this thread. @Emerikol and @Bedrockgames have denied as much, and they claim to be experts on "living world" RPGing. Who should I believe?

I'm not sure that @Emerikol and @Bedrockgames do disagree, or at least not completely. I haven't read all that they were talking about, but a lot of what they were saying was about sandbox, not necessarily living world. I think the vast majority of living worlds are sandbox games as well, but the DM of a railroad game can have NPCs react on their own in response to both the PCs and world events, as well as initiate world events outside of the PCs. Nothing about living world restricts it to only sandbox play.

 

[pemerton]

One of the techniques we're useful in our games is to skip long backgrounds and instead develop 4-5 connected NPCs when you create a character (1-4 sentences on each). We find that it really helps to flesh out a PC if we get a glimpse of who is important in their life.

So my regular group just started a new campaign with the intention of rotating GMs periodically. So we crafted many of the NPCs in our starting town as a group. We established who knew whom and why.

Each of the PCs feels like they have their own place in the setting...like they existed beforehand instead of springing to life spontaneously at the start of the game.

This is interesting.

Here is the background I wrote for Thurgon, my BW PC:

​

Thurgon is the descendant of earls (arms: a bear rampant above a sword dividing a shield), but Auxol, his ancestral estate (1½ days on foot, or about 25 miles, South-east of Adir, the nearest large town) fell to the darkness 66 years ago. Thurgon has not set foot there for over 5 years, since he left to take service with the Iron Tower.​

​

Thurgon’s father is deceased, but his mother Xanthippe (now 61 years old) still lives on the estate. So does his older brother Rufus (40 years old)., the 9th Count of Adir (although for the past 66 years that title has counted for little, having been usurped by others).​

​

Thurgon’s 23 year old younger brother, Vuryang, also lives on the estate, with his 18 year old bride Eisette. Thurgon has never met her, but heard news of the wedding 8 months ago.​

​

Although Auxol is now owned by servants of evil, the family continues to manage it. Xanthippe ensures that the estate serves as a bolthole for refugees. Rufus is sympathetic to their plight, but sees them ultimately as someone else’s problem. His interests are more mundane (it is fairly common knowledge that he has a 3 year old illegitimate son with a middle class townswoman).​

​

Thurgon trained in the Iron Tower, a stronghold of those who serve the Lord of Battle. The arms of the tower are crossed battle axes in front of a shield with the sun rising above it. Thurgon left the Iron Tower only weeks ago. The Knight Commander of the order sent him forth into the wilderness. He does not know why.​

I don't know if that counts as "long" or not.

BW is a lifepath PC build system, and Thurgon's Life Paths are Born Noble, Page, Squire, Religious Acolyte, and Knight of a Holy Military Order. To give the background further teeth, I picked up the following character elements in PC building (using the resource points earned from my lifepaths):

Relationship: Xanthippe (Mother, on family estate)​

​

Reputation: +1D last Knight of the Iron Tower​

​

Affiliations: +1D von Pfizer family; +1D Order of the Iron Tower​

The relationship with Xanthippe means that I (Thurgon's player) can bring her into play whenever the fictional positioning is apt. With my other relatives, I have to make a Circles check with the bonus die from my affiliation. The same process applies to meet members of my Order.

For me, this all gives me a sense of who Thurgon is. And the dynamics of play reinforce it: with those build assets invested in the reputation and affiliation, I as a player have an obvious incentive to lean into Circles checks as a way of engaging the situations the GM establishes. Which I do. So these elements of Thurgon's life figure prominently in play.

This is further reinforced by the GM doing the job the rules instruct him to do, and framing situations that play on Thurgon's relationships (ie his mother, and family more broadly) and Beliefs (which include a Belief about the family estate, Auxol, as well as a statement of faith - The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory - and one that reflects membership of the Order - I am a Knight of the Iron Tower: by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory).

For me at least, the feel is very different from when I first rolled up a D&D character and entered the world of B2 KotB with no personality or history besides a name. And it's also different from games I've played where the PC had a backstory but the actual focus of play was basically unrelated to that (eg going on a fetch quest for a powerful NPC).

A module like Dragonlance obviously tries to be closer to what I like about BW and my BW PC, but it relies on completely different methods - "story before" - to do it. I think the BW approach is superior, both from the point of view of immersion in character and from the point of view of player agency.

 

[pemerton]

No it doesn't make it a living world. You don't really prep much ahead of time, so that rumor was introduced for their benefit(ie into the PC bubble), rather than as part of the world moving on its own. The players, knowing that they are playing Burning Wheel are aware of that, which alters the feel of the game.

Is it possible to actually state this aspect of the "living world" method independent of making the contrast with my BW campaign?

I think the vast majority of living worlds are sandbox games as well, but the DM of a railroad game can have NPCs react on their own in response to both the PCs and world events, as well as initiate world events outside of the PCs. Nothing about living world restricts it to only sandbox play.

But if my reasons in BW stop that from being a "living world" game, wouldn't the same be true in the railroad game? The GM would be doing the stuff you describe for different reasons.