What is the point of GM's notes?

[prabe]

The only implications from the marriage of those two above and your persistent action resolution harmony at your table is "prabe is a good 5e GM and his alchemy with his players works."

That is a statement that all GMs should hope for as a broad statement of their play. But using it as a proxy for "a 5e GM self-constraining via extra-game principles smuggled in so that they can limbo well under their mandate + action resolution procedures can reliably achieve table-synchronous action resolution across any four 5e players (who are not inherently dysfunctional or combative)" is extremely fraught.

But honestly, that is intentful design. That is a feature, not a bug. The designers willfully designed in heterogeneity across the population of all 5e tables; "Rulings not rules, natural language, make the game your own, and find your own alchemy." But it doesn't stand up that you can reverse engineer that design intent to say that your "found alchemy" is reproducible at scale because "competent GM + intentfully designed cross-table heterogeneity." I'm not saying you're saying that, but if that is the implication, it can't stand up. I'm sure there are stray anecdotes of relative "Edens of 5e Protagonistic Play" sprinkled about the "5e-osphere" (like yours). But if its happening at scale, (a) its happening quietly and (b) all of the noise that says it isn't is somehow just a flukily robust noise masquerading as signal. Further (and again), where the anecdotes do exist, there is a lot of "extra-synchronicity" stuff that are consequential aspects of that alchemy (when it comes to action resolution mediation specifically).

Man, that is a lot of crap I just wrote. I hope that makes sense.

First, the whole post makes sense to me.

Second, My point has been that the kind of 5E play that happens at the tables I'm DMing is possible, and I know it's possible because I see it happen. I agree that it's difficult-shading-to-impossible to reproduce what you aptly describe as "table alchemy" at anything like scale; I suspect part of the (intentional) design of 5E is to encourage that (cynical interpretation: so that two tables playing the same AP feel different).

Third, I think I'm a better 5E DM for having run other games. Most of the "extra-game principles" you mention probably have come from that, with some amount coming from both positive ("do that") and negative ("for the love of all that's holy don't do that") examples from the relatively small number of GMs I've played with.

 

[Emerikol]

You guys have been busy and I've tried to catch up best I can but there is a lot of text out there so forgive me if I missed something.

I wanted to address the term plot. Whenever I use it, I use it in the way the phrase "Evil men will plot villainy" way. I am not using it in the "plot of a novel" way. Since the PCs in my games have complete agency (given the previously accepted limits like the sandbox), I have not plot agenda in the "plot of a novel" way of thinking.

I try to keep a bunch of well defined NPCs both good, bad, and middle of the road going with various agendas. Perhaps agenda is a better word for what I'm talking about. I don't change those agendas to suit the PCs though on occasion those agendas have to change because the PCs are interfering or influencing.

I definitely do not subscribe to DM guided games. I think that is unfair. I do create an interesting world with a lot going on so the group can easily find something to do. I definitely think it's not good if the group is wandering about randomly without a seeming purpose. I don't have that happen in my games for any significant length of time. The group is experienced with sandboxes and knows how to find interesting things to do.

Also to address exploration as an agenda. I think discovery in sandbox play is akin to people liking to read fantasy or science fiction or history. They want to experience another world. That adds to the experience. For me to read about something in the present day, it has to be over the top good because it starts in the hole engagement wise. But, that does not mean that exploration is a character goal in the game 24/7. Most of the time they are engaging with the setting and pursuing their interests which often are defeating evil or finding treasure.

There are some accepted conventions about sandbox play in my game....
1. We usually have several session 0's where we build each characters background. They say what sort of character they envision and I provide them with a specific example. Often after a bunch of questions back and forth. I typically give them a high level regional map at minimum right off. If they have a scholar with the right skills I might even give them a continent sized map.

2. I kind of insist on group loyalty. I am not big into games where the PCs are backstabbing each other. My worlds have a very strong cultural taboo against killing a fellow adventurer. So strong that people won't do it in general for fear of the Gods wrath. So even evil groups tend to be loyal within their own ranks.

3. The players know they have to set the agenda and can do what they want. They know they have to drive the pace of the game. They also know the places to look for adventure. They know they will have choices.

4. The sandbox is a limited size portion of the world. I am not absolute in forbidding they never leave the sandbox but if they do I reserve the right to end the session right there and tell them I will have to build a new sandbox. This actually makes sense. I am also growing the sandbox organically as the campaign progresses. So at the beginning there may be a city that is known but outside the sandbox. I might add it at some point. By add, I mean provide sandbox level detail. So in the same sense some of you have genre conventions, I have let's call them game style conventions.

 

[Emerikol]

As for the personality discussion, I find some of you pompous twits on occasion ;-). That goes for all "sides" in the discussion. I don't hate anyone. I find a few annoying on occasion at different times. In fact sometimes I wish there was an age indicator, so if I was arguing with a 14 year old I'd know it and perhaps cut him some more slack.

 

[Fenris-77]

This is patently laughable. The whole movement against the 5 minute workday was as a result of 1e and 2e. You do realize that every single one of the wizards spells were once per day in 1e and 2e. There were none of these cantrip attack spells. You threw daggers a lot. And resource management, at high levels only rarely came into play and only in some campaigns like mine where it is valued. There were plenty of groups that just didn't use it and in many cases those same groups were complaining about the 5 minute workday.

Whatever. One, you obviously didn't read my posts (see your comment about high level play above). Two, you've somehow taken my argument that resource management mitigates against the 5MWD and somehow made it not only your idea but even managed to paste on a value judgement about it. Three, cantrips don't change the picture, if they did 5E wouldn't have issues with the 5MWD but it does, enormous problems. To sum up, yes resource management works against the 5MWD, congratulations, you've restated my point.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As for the personality discussion, I find some of you pompous twits on occasion ;-). That goes for all "sides" in the discussion. I don't hate anyone. I find a few annoying on occasion at different times. In fact sometimes I wish there was an age indicator, so if I was arguing with a 14 year old I'd know it and perhaps cut him some more slack.

with me it’s a 44 year old man-child you are arguing with

 

[Aldarc]

I have heated exchanges with Manbearcat but I respect him. I don’t dislike anyone in this thread (not you, not pemerton). There are behaviors that bother me. Pemerton and I have never seen eye to eye, but I treat people nice if they are nice to me. Not saying I am never at fault, I am sure some of the insults came my way because I said something and didn’t realize it’s impact. I am willing to apologize if I say something and it bothered someone. But if someone insults me, that is likely to get a reaction. And even then I think I am fairly polite and reasonable (I just stare clearly if I feel insulted). But look at our exchange, you have been extremely hostile to me this whole thread, yet I engage you and and try to genuinely answer your posts. But it is obvious you dislike me.

This really all goes back to my much earlier point: we are all virtuous heroes in the stories we tell about ourselves.

Well I am not making the claim that living world is sone esoteric high level of play. It is an approach, a set of guiding principles and structure. I don’t think it is aesthetic though anymore than a dungeon structure is aesthetic or a Ley the dice fall where they may is an aesthetic one. It shapes outcomes significantly. If you keep an eye on it, make a point of maintaining the living world, it isn’t simply an illusion: you are providing a world to the players that changes, that follows logic and has internal consistency.

THAT'S AN AESTHETIC!

Let me just Maxperson you for a second and provide a basic dictionary definition of aesthetic: "a set of principles underlying the work of a particular artist or artistic movement."

 

[Bedrockgames]

This really all goes back to my much earlier point: we are all virtuous heroes in the stories we tell about ourselves.

Obviously there is truth in that: no one thinks they are the bad guy. But there is also a truth of what happens (it isn't always two equally virtuous sides assailing each other). I am not saying anyone is bad. Nor am I saying I am always in the right here. I am saying when I sense I am being dismissed, ridiculed or that I or someone else is being mocked for not being as well educated as another poster, I have a stronger visceral reaction to that than if someone says something like "I get your point but I disagree". Generally when that happens I try to state clearly to the person that I can't engage them for a bit. Sometimes I act impulsively and respond with anger.

 

[Maxperson]

This is the action declaration. I've not ignored it. I've mentioned it in every reply to you on this particular point.

Roleplay is not action declaration. Often there is no action being declared at all and no rolls involved, yet it shapes how play progresses.

This is isn't a competition. There's no "moving of goalposts". I asked you a question about what constrains your narration as GM.

No competition is required for you to move the goalposts and add in something new after I've answered you. Surely as a self-proclaimed expert in the field of language, you understand that that fallacy doesn't just apply to competition. You added something new to the process we were discussing while we were discussing it. You moved the goalposts.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This really all goes back to my much earlier point: we are all virtuous heroes in the stories we tell about ourselves.


THAT'S AN AESTHETIC!

Let me just Maxperson you for a second and provide a basic dictionary definition of aesthetic: "a set of principles underlying the work of a particular artist or artistic movement."

I don't know: is a dungeon crawl an aesthetic. Is letting the dice fall where they may an aesthetic. To me your remark that it was just an aesthetic, seemed to be getting at it being pretty superficial. Whereas I think there are number of structures, techniques, etc. at work in a living world sandbox. If all you mean by aesthetic is a set of guiding principles, then I suppose pretty much anything we talk about here could be an aesthetic.

 

[Maxperson]

...as a living world. I think that you prefer viewing how you run the game in terms of its aesthetical ends rather than its aromantic nitty gritty process. If you don't have a good word for it, then I would advise trying to come up with one, because "living world" isn't cutting the mustard.


I can't see how imagining the NPCs as characters with personal volitions and motives of their own is distinctly "living world." This falls fairly squarely in how one of the chief duties of GMing is commonly described - i.e., controlling and giving life to the NPCs - in more bog standard TTRPG play. Making the pieces move on the board is basically just "leveling-up" the pre-existing toolkit for GMs.

Listening to you describe your "living world process," I (and likely others) feel about like Ricky Gervais listening to Sir Ian McKellen in Extras describing how he can act so well.

But I get it. You want a world that fees vibrant, organic, and alive. You want a world that feels like it's in motion independent of the PCs. However, it is abundantly clear to me that the "living world" is an aesthetic goal of play rather than the actual process of how it unfolds. I think it's fine to say "the GM decides what's believable." They may be deciding based upon the constraints of their ideas in a given moment, their notes, their preconceptions of "realism" or the NPCs, or the actions of the PCs. The wholistic approach to describe what's fundamentally going on isn't "living world," but, rather, "the GM decides (based upon their desire to cultivate a particular aesthetic of play)." There is nothing wrong with this, as I and others who have also run sandbox games have told you numerous times before. Even if "living world" helps you understand what you do, I just don't think that mystifying "living world" helps anything for everyone, as evidenced by @Campbell's own experiences.

Of course "Living, breathing world" is a goal and not a process. When someone says, "I want to create a living, breathing world" they are not saying, "I want to create a process." It's the culmination of what we do to get there.

You acknowledge above that giving NPCs motivations and personal volitions(not living, breathing) is standard play and part of the DM toolkit. Then you acknowledge that having them take actions on their own(part of what makes a world living, breathing) is just leveling up that tool. Well, yeah. By leveling it up, it changes into something done differently which alters the feel of the game.

In addition to having NPCs do things, though, there are also events. Having a major earthquake planned to strike Cormyr 67 days after the campaign begins is also part of the process of reaching the living, breathing world goal. If the party happens to be in Cormyr, they will experience the quake, which could be natural or part of some nefarious plot. If they are not in Cormyr, then they will likely hear of it eventually.