What is the point of GM's notes?

[Aldarc]

I run a D&D sandbox game. With regards to finding keys in the pocket of the guards
The methods I commonly use are say yes or roll a skill check or just make a luck roll (odds or evens, above 10).
There are ofcourse situations where I may say no to something, for instance if I'm using a map and there is no secret door in the place they are searching for one.

I do not think the above is establishing facts.
It is more, the player provides an idea and the GM runs with it, which is itself not revolutionary as GMs have often run off player ideas presented at the table, from the existence of keys, to the entire sessions, to massive-story arcs within campaigns (and this even in D&D).

Their points being made about players establishing facts about the world does not depend on the "finding keys in the pocket of the guards" example.

 

[Emerikol]

@Lanefan I wasn't denying your experience. I just gave my own and thought it would be really hard to maintain.

I think immersion is another word that has been stretched depending on the context. If I were at a religious conference of some sort immersion could mean being dunked completely under the water and nothing more. Immersed has to have a context. Immersed in what?

When I've used the term for players being immersed, or I've said something breaks immersion, I've generally mean the ability to maintain character POV. I absolutely agree there are other uses even in D&D. An especially tough combat could immerse you completely as you try to figure out how to win the battle. Just like a game of chess or any other competitive game. I'd even say I often get immersed when working on my "living world" as I'll have hours pass and hardly notice. None of those things though to me are what I've traditionally meant when discussing things breaking immersion.

Staying in character means making decisions that the character would make. This is where I think sometimes other styles depart from my own. When the character is a piece in the story, that the player can use and even abuse, it's a different sort of feel to the game. Now that feel may be a great feel for people. I understand it. It's a different feel though from playing strictly in character.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Their points being made about players establishing facts about the world does not depend on the "finding keys in the pocket of the guards" example.

Fair enough.

 

[pemerton]

Whoever they are talking about is pretty bad at running a sandbox. In my game I don't bother to come up with solutions to the problems I put out there. I used to, but eventually I realized that 1) I can't think of everything, and 2) the players usually come up with things that I didn't think of. Some solutions just jump out at me, so often there's one or two that I know about, but not because I sat and thought about it. Last campaign a ghost was terrorizing a town and the players needed to come up with solutions to putting her to eternal rest. I think I had one solution that jumped out at me. While the players were brainstorming ideas, they came up with three more that could work(and some that wouldn't or weren't likely), including one that was so good that had they tried it, would have worked with no roll. A well run sandbox shouldn't have players that are trying to guess what the DM is thinking. It should have players that are figuring out solutions to problems on their own and presenting those solutions to the DM who then adjudicates.

I usually like to make sure I have at least one solution in mind, in case the players get stuck (because I figure the characters might grasp things the players don't) but otherwise I'm with you on not having a singular solution that will work.

For me, this raises a couple of questions.

First, a solution implies a problem. Where are these problems coming from? Who is introducing the relevant stuff into the fiction, and establishing how the PCs are oriented towards it? For instance, in @Maxperson's example (i) who decided that a ghost was terrorising a town, and (ii) who decided that the PCs needed to put the ghost to eternal rest, and (iii) what motivated the decision in (ii) - and I don't mean in the fiction, I mean at the table.

Second, what makes a solution one that can work? Who decides that, and how? What would make a solution so good that it would work with no roll? What do the players need to know to identify a solution as (i) viable at all, (ii) a good one, and/or (iii) such a good one that it might succeed automatically? Whatever it is that the players need to know, how do they learn that?

Suppose the players think that a plan is a good one - eg because it fits with their understanding of how ghosts, and magic, and prayer all work. Is that relevant in these "living worlds"?

 

[prabe]

For me, this raises a couple of questions.

First, a solution implies a problem. Where are these problems coming from? Who is introducing the relevant stuff into the fiction, and establishing how the PCs are oriented towards it? For instance, in @Maxperson's example (i) who decided that a ghost was terrorising a town, and (ii) who decided that the PCs needed to put the ghost to eternal rest, and (iii) what motivated the decision in (ii) - and I don't mean in the fiction, I mean at the table.

I'm not going to try to speak for @Maxperson here, but in the campaigns I'm running ...

If there's a ghost terrorizing a town, it's doing so because I decided it is.
If putting the ghost to rest is a solution (note the indefinite article) it's because I decided that was an approach that would work, that the players might stumble upon.
And I decided that in case the players got stuck, and started looking to skill rolls to give them the answer so that I'd have an answer (again, that indefinite article) ready.

Second, what makes a solution one that can work? Who decides that, and how? What would make a solution so good that it would work with no roll? What do the players need to know to identify a solution as (i) viable at all, (ii) a good one, and/or (iii) such a good one that it might succeed automatically? Whatever it is that the players need to know, how do they learn that?

As you might guess from above, that all comes to my decisions--either in prepping the scenario or reacting to the players while running it. Generally (in D&D 5E) I'll use skill rolls to determine what the PCs know/understand/can figure out, if the players get stuck; I generally try to make sure there's information available the players can put together, but that doesn't always work (because players). So, to answer your last question: They either learn it through play (what I think you describe as "free narration") or they learn it through skills (because I believe there are things the characters might know about the setting that the players do not).

Suppose the players think that a plan is a good one - eg because it fits with their understanding of how ghosts, and magic, and prayer all work. Is that relevant in these "living worlds"?

It's relevant in my campaigns; but remember that I don't claim, or intend, or really even want to be running a "living world" as some of the other posters in this thread use that term.

 

[Maxperson]

For me, this raises a couple of questions.

First, a solution implies a problem. Where are these problems coming from? Who is introducing the relevant stuff into the fiction, and establishing how the PCs are oriented towards it? For instance, in @Maxperson's example (i) who decided that a ghost was terrorising a town, and (ii) who decided that the PCs needed to put the ghost to eternal rest, and (iii) what motivated the decision in (ii) - and I don't mean in the fiction, I mean at the table.

1. I placed the ghost.
2. They decided it should be put to eternal rest.
3. I assume the players wanted to help the townsfolk. I don't ask for specific motivations. I just react to what the players tell me that they are having their PCs do.

Second, what makes a solution one that can work? Who decides that, and how? What would make a solution so good that it would work with no roll? What do the players need to know to identify a solution as (i) viable at all, (ii) a good one, and/or (iii) such a good one that it might succeed automatically? Whatever it is that the players need to know, how do they learn that?

What makes a solution one that could work? One that makes sense with putting the ghost at rest. Tossing a rock into the air wouldn't be a solution that could work. The one that was so good that it would work was to take the townsfolk who had "wronged" the ghost while she was alive to the site of her body, which they found, and have them apologize to her. She felt wronged by the townsfolk that picked on her and died while asking a goddess of pain and suffering for help in getting revenge. While she was awake and going after the town, her rage was too strong for her to be reasoned with. The PCs got a roll, but missed it. During the day when she was calmer and stuck with her body in the ethereal plane, she would have listened.

Suppose the players think that a plan is a good one - eg because it fits with their understanding of how ghosts, and magic, and prayer all work. Is that relevant in these "living worlds"?

That has nothing to do with a living world. Their plan isn't outside the PC bubble.

 

[Emerikol]

For me, this raises a couple of questions.

First, a solution implies a problem. Where are these problems coming from? Who is introducing the relevant stuff into the fiction, and establishing how the PCs are oriented towards it? For instance, in @Maxperson's example (i) who decided that a ghost was terrorising a town, and (ii) who decided that the PCs needed to put the ghost to eternal rest, and (iii) what motivated the decision in (ii) - and I don't mean in the fiction, I mean at the table.

Second, what makes a solution one that can work? Who decides that, and how? What would make a solution so good that it would work with no roll? What do the players need to know to identify a solution as (i) viable at all, (ii) a good one, and/or (iii) such a good one that it might succeed automatically? Whatever it is that the players need to know, how do they learn that?

Suppose the players think that a plan is a good one - eg because it fits with their understanding of how ghosts, and magic, and prayer all work. Is that relevant in these "living worlds"?

The backstory comes from the GM. Either prior to campaign start or as a result of dynamic setting changes across the calendar of events in the world.

First, I think in a living world, there is an expectation that a truth exists as to how the world works. Primarily that comes from the rules but when it doesn't it comes from the campaign thus the GM. Ultimately the GM is the arbiter of the function of the world when stimulated by the PCs.

I'm not sure I love this scenario myself. I definitely would want the standard method of getting rid of a ghost to work. So figuring out everything and having the villagers apologize would be extra. A nice extra and maybe even a bonus on x.p. for good roleplaying. If they don't figure it out though then they just have to kill the ghost or move on. Nothing aberrant about that outcome either.

This goes to adventure design more than living world but I find I avoid too narrow a path to success when I create adventures. I also tend to avoid end the world scenarios. The PCs may not cooperate in solving the adventure and if they don't that has to be okay too.

 

[Campbell]

The backstory comes from the GM. Either prior to campaign start or as a result of dynamic setting changes across the calendar of events in the world.

First, I think in a living world, there is an expectation that a truth exists as to how the world works. Primarily that comes from the rules but when it doesn't it comes from the campaign thus the GM. Ultimately the GM is the arbiter of the function of the world when stimulated by the PCs.

I'm not sure I love this scenario myself. I definitely would want the standard method of getting rid of a ghost to work. So figuring out everything and having the villagers apologize would be extra. A nice extra and maybe even a bonus on x.p. for good roleplaying. If they don't figure it out though then they just have to kill the ghost or move on. Nothing aberrant about that outcome either.

This goes to adventure design more than living world but I find I avoid too narrow a path to success when I create adventures. I also tend to avoid end the world scenarios. The PCs may not cooperate in solving the adventure and if they don't that has to be okay too.

Where does traditional adventure design fit in here? Isn't the point to build a dynamic sandbox and provide players with complete autonomy so they get to set their own agendas and play the world/setting with integrity? That's my focus whenever I run a sandbox game.

 

[Emerikol]

Where does traditional adventure design fit in here? Isn't the point to build a dynamic sandbox and provide players with complete autonomy so they get to set their own agendas and play the world/setting with integrity? That's my focus whenever I run a sandbox game.

I'm not totally sure what you are getting at. We create dungeons and places of interest to put in our sandbox right? I called them adventures but that is what I mean. Of course not every "adventure" if you mean interesting series of events is in a dungeon. Tussling with the palace guard might not be adventurous but I didn't mean it that way.

I'm talking about GM placed places of interest like lost tombs, etc... This goes to NPC villains too. If you put a powerful NPC villain into the campaign setting with an agenda and give that NPC the tools to achieve his evil aims, you have to be ready for those evil aims to happen. You can't hope the PCs will stop every foul plot afoot.

 

[Emerikol]

Sure, what we're talking about is the idea, or maybe even the possibility of something called GM immersion. I would submit its impossible based on descriptions of what people expect out of player immersion, but I also don't really believe that player immersion is a thing the way some people want it to be. I don't think you need nothing but non-meta (whatever that is) mechanics to be able to 'immerse'. I think immersion into the game in a thing, and sometimes that might verge on character immersion, but it's not the holy grail that sandbox zealots want it to be. YMMV, of course.

And yet you state it so matter of factly as truth. I absolutely think maintaining character viewpoint is a very desirable goal for a lot of people. I don't think everyone cares about it and it's clear you don't. To me, how it breaks out is unknown. I do think there are enough that want what I want to be a viable group amongst the various groups playing roleplaying games.

And even though we can debate about immersion per se, there can be no debate that at least some people want to maintain character only viewpoint in terms of what they can do as a player. Whether that is to maintain immersion or just a preference for approaching the world from that stance is really beside the point. We are getting into feelings or whatever at that point. I'm not dismissing my viewpoint but just saying what you think or I think about the root cause doesn't matter. The preference exists.