What is the point of GM's notes?

[prabe]

I'll counter with R.E.M. I feel fine.

I almost tried to do something with "It's the End of the World" but there are really a lot of words there.

I have to admit I was disappointed that none of the players seemed to get the reference. I know I'm old, but they're not that much younger than I am.

 

[Aldarc]

Also on the living world concept, if people want a better explanation that is perhaps more palatable to the sensibilities of this thread: read Stars without Number. Kevin Crawford explains what a living world is there (posters in this thread who don't take my position have praised him: and it is praise he surely deserves).

A number of us (e.g., @Campbell, @TwoSix, me, etc.) have read the Crawford text, but he's not talking play process. He's mainly talking goals, ideals, and tools to support such play. I'm not sure why you think we're ignorant of it and still disagree with you.

EDIT: Will try to put some more resources in here (Matt Colville has a video on sandboxes and made one recently that gets at some of the things Hawkeye touched on)

I've watched both. In the most recent one, he argues that D&D is a sandbox game, that railroad is overused as a term, and that most players will go along with the prepared "choice" just so that they can play D&D. But I'm not sure that I or others here would agree with his video. So I'm not sure what that appeal is hoping to accomplish.

I really do get the feeling that you still think that this conversation is about (or maybe you are trying to turn into a conversation about) ends and not means. So maybe the reason why 95 percent of people who get you is because you are having a completely separate conversation than the one that we are trying to have here with you. You came here to talk up your living world. We came here to deconstruct it and other game models.

 

[Bedrockgames]

A number of us (e.g., @Campbell, @TwoSix, me, etc.) have read the Crawford text, but he's not talking play process. He's mainly talking goals, ideals, and tools to support such play. I'm not sure why you think we're ignorant of it and still disagree with you.


I've watched both. In the most recent one, he argues that D&D is a sandbox game, that railroad is overused as a term, and that most players will go along with the prepared "choice" just so that they can play D&D. But I'm not sure that I or others here would agree with his video. So I'm not sure what that appeal is hoping to accomplish.

I really do get the feeling that you still think that this conversation is about (or maybe you are trying to turn into a conversation about) ends and not means. So maybe the reason why 95 percent of people who get you is because you are having a completely separate conversation than the one that we are trying to have here with you. You came here to talk up your living world. We came here to deconstruct it and other game models.

I don't know what to tell you Aldarc. I am trying to respond to peoples posts, and tell you how I play. I am also trying to give examples from text that might be relevant. I would argue that something like treating an NPC as a piece on the board, with independent goals that can bring them into contact with the PCs (acting when they choose as Crawford puts it) is a part of the sandbox living world's process). I didn't realize this discussion was suddenly limited to process alone though (since I am still fielding comments calling into question the ability to model a living world: comments I have attempted to answer). All I can say is if you find me off point or dislike my posts, maybe don't respond or keep responding in a hostile manner if it makes you happy. What I don't think is fair though is for you to insist I have to post a particular way or that I need to focus on some really focused aspect of the discussion (by all means talk about that stuff if you want, but I am here just like any other poster trying to engage the discussion).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've watched both. In the most recent one, he argues that D&D is a sandbox game, that railroad is overused as a term, and that most players will go along with the prepared "choice" just so that they can play D&D. But I'm not sure that I or others here would agree with his video. So I'm not sure what that appeal is hoping to accomplish.

It wasn't an appeal. I was originally intending to just put as many links to relevant videos and such as possible (hoping to give a broad overview of sandbox and living world---since my descriptions seem to be falling flat for some folks). I thought Colville's opinions might interest people as they are largely different from my own, and get somewhat in the direction of things you and others have stated. But it would just one thought. At this point though, I don't really think it serves much purpose for me to post further links there.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You came here to talk up your living world. We came here to deconstruct it and other game models.

And I am trying to help you do this, but you can only deconstruct something if you understand what it is. Some posters here seem to understand what it is. Some seem to deny its existence or have hostility towards it and I think that clouds the analysis. My hope was to provide insight as someone who regularly engages in this style of play (which I would describe not as an end, but as an adventure structure with some underlying principles). As far as processes go, at this stage, I don't think I even know what you and pemerton even mean by that anymore. Any attempt I've made to connect to that has been rebuffed. I get the feeling I will only be listened to when I align my views with yours about 'the fiction' (but I could be wrong)

 

[Bedrockgames]

I almost tried to do something with "It's the End of the World" but there are really a lot of words there.

I have to admit I was disappointed that none of the players seemed to get the reference. I know I'm old, but they're not that much younger than I am.

It has been odd for me needing to explain cultural references that used to be assumed. It is easy to forget how many decades have passed since a song, movie, etc was a thing.

 

[AnotherGuy]

So what do you think it is that you as a GM of “your style” do that @pemerton doesn’t do?

Portray NPCs as dynamic individuals? Try to think about them based on their goals? Try to think of the world independently of the PCs?

The Living World/Sandbox approach you’ve described is so broad from what i’ve been able to glean, that it’s hard to think of it as its own method or style. I don’t think you’ve described anything that I wouldn’t expect to see in many games of differing styles.

As I understand it, the Living Word in the traditional form of play, doesn't require a bad roll for the GM to introduce consequences.
In many indie games, it appears that the Living part of the world sometimes requires a mechanic to drive such consequences. i.e. for the GM to author stuff in.

EDIT: Therefore, sometimes the mechanic (the results of the dice) may not allow for consequences, which you normally would expect in a Living World. Ofcourse, in defense of the mechanic, one could always create reasons/explanations why consequence did not come to exist.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As I understand it, the Living Word in the traditional form of play, doesn't require a bad roll for the GM to introduce consequences.
In many indie games, it appears that the Living part of the world sometimes requires a mechanic to drive such consequences. i.e. for the GM to author stuff in.

EDIT: Therefore, sometimes the mechanic (the results of the dice) may not allow for consequences, which you normally would expect in a Living World. Ofcourse, in defense of the mechanic, one could always create reasons/explanations why consequence did not come to exist.

What this is missing is that there is a mechanic present in the so-called "living world" -- the GM decides that it is so. This mechanic, which is the core mechanic of many games, is so often overlooked because it's so omnipresent in these games.

1) Characters do action A.
2) The GM applies the mechanic of GM deciding, and assigns consequences because he believes this action has failed in some way and so deserves a consequence.
3) GM narrates the consequence.

When you put this against games that require an explicitly stated mechanic, the process loop looks similar. The real difference is that in the above, the GM can decide about consequences now or later -- a past action can be deemed to have consequences not thought of at the time because it fits the GM's new idea. Plus, all of this gets obfuscated a good bit, as the reason for a consequence is not always, possibly rarely, known by the players. Good play in this approach, in my opinion, would be that the players usually know why, and always can and usually do find out. Poor play is when the players cannot find out why on a regular basis. I also think the danger here is when consequences are not well forshadowed, because this leads to players feeling like they have no understanding of what's at stake and aren't making meaningful choices -- they're just guessing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What this is missing is that there is a mechanic present in the so-called "living world" -- the GM decides that it is so. This mechanic, which is the core mechanic of many games, is so often overlooked because it's so omnipresent in these games.

1) Characters do action A.
2) The GM applies the mechanic of GM deciding, and assigns consequences because he believes this action has failed in some way and so deserves a consequence.
3) GM narrates the consequence.

When you put this against games that require an explicitly stated mechanic, the process loop looks similar. The real difference is that in the above, the GM can decide about consequences now or later -- a past action can be deemed to have consequences not thought of at the time because it fits the GM's new idea. Plus, all of this gets obfuscated a good bit, as the reason for a consequence is not always, possibly rarely, known by the players. Good play in this approach, in my opinion, would be that the players usually know why, and always can and usually do find out. Poor play is when the players cannot find out why on a regular basis. I also think the danger here is when consequences are not well forshadowed, because this leads to players feeling like they have no understanding of what's at stake and aren't making meaningful choices -- they're just guessing.

The mechanic is going to vary from game to game, which is why I haven't addressed the core mechanic. But I think most sandboxes and living worlds tend to be run using something like this or like I described (players say they try to do X, GM says what happens or what they see, etc). But the problem is this break down misses all the nuances me and others have been trying to draw your attention to (the questions and answers part of the game, the stuff that constrains what a GM can say, the fact that there is supposed to be this model of a world that the GM is expected to be cleaving to, etc). The problem is you are focusing in on a very narrow slice of play and that is going to miss the essence of a style like living world (it will be a flawed analysis if this is where you put all your focus).

But I do think you hit on things lots of living world GMs discuss and debate (and there is no one answer here). The idea of how to give players the information they need to make decisions, of how much to reveal from behind the curtain so they know illusionism isn't occurring etc, is stuff people talk about and have arrived at general advice for. I think this is complicated by the fact that skilled play is often strongly valued in these games, so there is a reluctance to just hand players information (there is an idea of players needing to work to get results, but also an idea of good work should be rewarded). I think when the style breaks down it is often because people at the table are not communicating with one another well, have differing expectations and this can result in the sense that they are just guessing. Actually Matt Colville talked about his in his recent video and I feel he made several good points about it. A lot of it is the players need to be able to both take initiative and ask questions. They should also be letting the GM know when things are not clear. In terms of foreshadowing, I think some things will be, some things won't be. But what shouldn't happen is a 'no matter what' situation. It is somewhat artificial for example to have every trap have a clue or warning before hand, for example. But if players do something to test for the trap, and that would set it off, the GM shouldn't ignore their efforts. This also comes up with monsters and threats. What I tell my party very clearly is: some monsters and enemies will be way more powerful than you, some way less, some in your range of power, characters can die (because of bad dice rolls, choices you make, and choices monsters and threats make), so caution is advised.

Now if we are talking about consequences that stem from something like an interaction with an NPC that goes south. I think that is the sort of thing where a good sandbox GM does not just make the negative consequence happen because that is what he or she wants, it should be a logical outcome of what the players say or do (against the personality and motives of the NPC) and/or a product of the dice (if dice are used for the type of situation in question). The player responsibility in this kind of situation is to play smart and try to learn or glean what they can about NPCs before getting into a situation like that. But sometimes situations arise unexpectedly, and players just happen to say the wrong thing. I don't think the GM has a duty to telegraph that if such a situation arises (just like in life I may find myself in a situation where I meet someone and say the one thing that sets them off without realizing it).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think this is a little bit silly to say. Clearly folks know what we mean by sandbox, they know what we mean by living world. To suggest a sandbox living world is the same as adventure path for example doesn't make sense. To say it is the same as an investigative adventure doesn't really make sense either. To say it is the same as one based on scenes or based on characters having dramatic arcs doesn't quite make sense either. The point of this kind of campaign is it is meant to be something players can freely explore and move around in as their characters, and in order for that to work, having the living world where NPCs are also pieces in play is important. Lots of adventures can feature living NPCs. This is why I mentioned the Feast of Goblyns quote earlier (that wasn't a sandbox adventure). But if you extend that principle to the world, and you do so in a sandbox style campaign, you clearly have something different from what a lot of people here are talking about.

You've said in this thread that you like to run a lot of investigative adventures. Do they not take place in a sandbox? Or a living world?

Here's the thing.....Sandbox and Living Worlds are Nouns. I know many folks have taken Sandbox as an Adjective to describe a type of game.

I'm looking for your Verbs. How do you do what you do? You shoot down any actual verbs suggested in favor of describing your technique with Nouns and then tell others they're equivocating. As if you can't grasp the idea that making believe can be described as "authoring". And now I'm silly? Okay.

I don't know what to tell you Aldarc. I am trying to respond to peoples posts, and tell you how I play. I am also trying to give examples from text that might be relevant. I would argue that something like treating an NPC as a piece on the board, with independent goals that can bring them into contact with the PCs (acting when they choose as Crawford puts it) is a part of the sandbox living world's process). I didn't realize this discussion was suddenly limited to process alone though (since I am still fielding comments calling into question the ability to model a living world: comments I have attempted to answer). All I can say is if you find me off point or dislike my posts, maybe don't respond or keep responding in a hostile manner if it makes you happy. What I don't think is fair though is for you to insist I have to post a particular way or that I need to focus on some really focused aspect of the discussion (by all means talk about that stuff if you want, but I am here just like any other poster trying to engage the discussion).

Let's go with your last session. What happened in it? What kinds of GMing decisions did it require? What did the players do? I don't need a play by play, but a few examples would be great.