What is the point of GM's notes?

[AnotherGuy]

Outside of Toon, Paranoia etc what GM doesn't have the goal of making it believable?

I think believable may be the wrong word, I think the word should be immersive.
Different games put their focus on particular elements of the game to make things more immersive.
Those that pursue this living world ideal would attempt to frame a continuous sense of change that would occur in the setting despite PC actions.

 

[Imaro]

To be clear: I have no problem admitting that I author the vast majority of the world in the games I run, but I dislike the phrasing "the GM's notes" because it feels as though it is implying that the GM has planned a story, which seems like a railroad--or at least railroad-adjacent. I have less problem with your construction "the GM's conception of the world," but I realize it's both less pithy and less provocative.

Honestly I don't like it because it draws no appreciable difference between a railroad and a dynamic game.

 

[prabe]

The key element of the "living world" as I am making sense of it is that the fiction is created by the GM. This is what makes it possible for the players to learn it without also creating it. And the fact that players can learn it is what makes skilled play relevant.

In Prince Valiant, by way of contrast, and even moreso (say) Cthulhu Dark, there is really no skilled play in the D&D/Gygaxian sense. There is the skill of knowing your character and engaging the situation, but that's a completely different skill. It's about picking up the trajectory of the fiction and running with it.

I don't believe there is a conflict between a GM-created setting and the skill you describe in your second paragraph--"picking up the trajectory of the fiction and running with it." Nor do I believe it's impossible for the GM to exercise that skill: It seems necessary by my understanding (and limited experience) of explicitly Story Now games, and when I prep (or run) a session I have the previous session or two and the general narrative direction in mind.

 

[Fenris-77]

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.

 

[Maxperson]

I meant how do these things come up? Is it the result of the PCs asking around, or perhaps an interaction with an NPC or some similar action? Do the PCs somehow elicit this information from the GM? Or does the GM simply decide to tell them some random stuff?

Because I would expect the context to matter quite a lot. And if it's in some way elicited by the PCs, what places it "outside of their bubble"?

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."

So would you say that, ultimately, it's the players or the GM who determines if a world feels living?

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.

 

[Manbearcat]

Honestly I don't like it because it draws no appreciable difference between a railroad and a dynamic game.

What about:

Persistent, Objective Sandbox

That doesn't connote Railroad.

That implies dynamism (Sandbox).

That connotes "content generation is not orbiting around the PCs."

That connotes a hefty Story Before factor (generation of content before play) and a continuous content generation thereafter.

That admits to play-space boundaries (a Sandbox has borders) where prepped material ends.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know what is meant by the PC bubble.

The PC bubble is the sphere that sort of surrounds the PCs. The part where things happen wherever they go and they are central to pretty much everything.

If you are coming up with a rumor of a meteor striking a city as something interesting to entice the PCs, it's part of that bubble. It only happened because of the PCs. If the meteor strike happens independently of the PCs, because the DM is planning events of the world without it being about the PCs in some way, it part of a living world.

In the case of the meteor, the DM knows that the PCs will almost definitely hear about it. The "almost definitely" is the key there, because they might not ever learn of it. The DM having planned it out in advance, knows that it will happen on April 27th(insert date on setting calendar here). He doesn't control the PCs, though, so while it's probable that they will learn of the meteor strike, because news travels fast, it's also possible that on April 26th they decided to go to Sigil and do some research into an artifact rumored to be on Ysgard. They spend 6 months of in-fiction time researching and adventuring, and when they return the strike is old news and not really being talked about anymore.

The possibility for them to miss the event is one of the key elements to the event existing outside of the PC bubble.

And given that the "living world"/sandbox GM doesn't (and can't) prep everything, and has to improvise some stuff eg by relying on random tables or extrapolation, how is that different from (say) me GMing Classic Traveller using random tables or me GMing Prince Valiant making decisions about what might be interesting?

Do you use those tables to generate events outside the PC bubble? Or are you rolling on them to inform the PCs of interesting things, thereby inserting those events into the PC bubble?

Can you explain in what way?

See above. If you are making it up on the spot, it's almost definitely to insert it into the PC bubble as something interesting to tell the PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

The key element of the "living world" as I am making sense of it is that the fiction is created by the GM. This is what makes it possible for the players to learn it without also creating it. And the fact that players can learn it is what makes skilled play relevant.

No. They can learn anything the DM makes up. Existence outside the PC bubble is the key element.

 

[Emerikol]

Many types of games have the portrayal of a living world as a goal. Just as many games have fun as a goal. But if you ask someone how they GM if they said "using the fun style" you might feel like grabbing them and shaking them.

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.

Also, in my opinion, when that happens, folks are saying "THIS is the only way to achieve a living world because it's the living world method", which implies that other games are not concerned about that goal, and I don't think that's accurate.

It is accurate when you consider that as a gamist term it means that. That is my point.

So it's not that I think there's a problem with the term itself, so much as in how it has been used.

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....

So I asked this of @Maxperson and I'm waiting on some clarity from him, but I'll ask you as well.

Is there a difference when asked about what's on the far side of the world if the GM has been thinking about this in his free time and has an answer prepared, or if he simply makes one up on the spot?

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.

I'll break it down a little more. From the player's perspective, is there if a difference? If so, what is it and how would the player even be aware of it? From the GM perspective, is there a difference? If so, would you say that it's totally subjective and a matter of preference, or do you think there is an objective answer?

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've heard that term for years, but always more as a goal rather than as a method. If it's a method, then what is the method? Because from what I can see, different games go about striving for that goal in different ways.

But if something is meant to be a method or a style.....like "Story Now", for example.....then it should have a pretty uniform application. I don't think that's been shown in this thread at all.

Don't equate life limitations with a lack of desire. Some GMs are limited on time and they play frequently. I tend to design a world far in advance of even letting anyone know I am starting a campaign. And when I do create a new world I tend to either be using another or taking a break. I do think a good campaign setting carefully crafted can be used across more than one campaign.

So yes it is a dial. Some do more and some less. Perhaps for some people it's based on their comfort level. Ideally this is the order of preference for information flowing from the GM.

Written in Notes >
Generated Randomly but based on Notes >
Improv'd but with strong input from notes >
Improv'd

I would always prefer to move up if it is possible. But the only way to really model a world would be on a complexity level equal to a world which of course we cannot do.

So we circle out.
Sandbox Area - A great level of detail. Tons of detailed NPCs with motivations and personalities including good and bad guys. Lots of adventures of different sorts. You improv here very little. Even so if one of my PCs approaches an NPC in a tavern, I likely won't have his favorite drink recorded. I will likely just randomly roll based on his wealth.

Surrounding Nations/Cities - Here the detail is Gazateer+. If the nations are close by then I know the big shots and the movers and shakers. Those will enter and leave my sandbox on occasion. I will have at least a map of the major cities. I'll know what they trade, what industry they are into, there level of lawlessness, their religions, etc....

Farther afield Nations - Here the detail is Gazateer level. Maybe I'd detail an NPC who is so significant that he could influence the sandbox.

Over time I am constantly improving and expanding. So the sandbox might eventually include a nearby city in which case I'd have it detailed at that point.

Those words were used with the known definitions. Fiction means make believe. that's the only way it's been used in this thread. There was no need to change the word in any way for it to mean what it means.

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

Living world does seem to be meant as a placeholder as you suggest....but when asked what it is a placeholder for, it's been a struggle. Most of the time, references are made to a GM's prep and in advancing that based on passing time within the world. Okay, fine.....but then there was resistance to the idea of playing to learn what the GM has determined.

I've said it on a variety of occasions.

What is your definition?

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?

 

[Aldarc]

Honestly I don't like it because it draws no appreciable difference between a railroad and a dynamic game.

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.