What is the point of GM's notes?

[Imaro]

I disagree -- there are things the GM is set to determine in the setting. I have proof of this in Descent into Avernus. And, I'm to do this independent of the PCs in some cases, and dependent on them in others (well, dependent in the sense of quantum ogres).

Would you like to provide an example? Because if you're ad-hoc'ing and going off book then it's not really an AP railroad anymore is it?

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Sure, that's one definition that's been put forth, and I get it. I expect that's very much @Bedrockgames take on it, or very close to something like that.

But how is that achieved?

For instance, one GM may actively track what's happening with a given NPC during the time in between interactions that NPC has with the PCs. So let's say 10 sessions go by where the PCs don't interact with him. What has he been up to?

It may vary by game and by GM, but here are some possible answers:

• GM examines what happens in play and with other NPCs or Factions each week, and then decides how that has impacted the NPC in quesiton- he does this each week for each NPC or Faction "in play"
• GM waits until the PCs interact with the NPC again, and then looks at what has happened over the past 10 sessions, and decides how that has impacted the NPC in question- so he's not tracking it weekly, just at the time it becomes relevant
• GM establishes a goal for the NPC, or perhaps some other kind of event (maybe the NPC is being hunted by another faction, and may get caught) and decides on a weekly basis how this goal/event plays out and how much closer it is to happening
• GM established a goal/event for the NPC and then when the PCs interact with him again, decides what the previous 10 sessions have meant for that NPC, and establishes it accordingly
• GM makes weekly rolls to determine the progress of the goal/event as above and does this each week for each NPC/Faction "in play"
• GM waits until the NPC comes back on screen and then makes a roll to determine what has happened over the past 10 sessions and where that has left the NPC

These methods are all different, but their goal is the same- to present some sense that things have happened when the PCs have not been directly involved. There are other methods as well, I'm sure, but I think that's enough to make my point.

Most of the games I've played/GMed use maybe 2 of these methods, or suggest 2 or 3 as options. They all seek the same thing, but are different methods. Deciding which to use is likely just a matter of personal preference or what makes the most sense for the system being used, or perhaps the participants involved in the game.

This is why I think the use of "living world" as a style of game rather than a goal is kind of useless except by those who have accepted is as shorthand for something more specific. Because it applies to a game like Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World as readily as it does to D&D or more traditional sandbox games. And I expect that is not its intended use.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't understand why you think a reply to @Emerikol is relevant to how you play. Are you the same poster? Or playing in the same game?

He's making a general statement about the style. Those of us who play the style disagree with his incorrect assessment of what it is that we do.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And that's why using a specific term is important to you??

No, using a suitable descriptive term is, though. What's the alterative proposed to describe the play where players use action declarations or just straight out ask the GM questions to learn what the GM thinks about the fiction? This is an important chunk of play in many styles -- vital, even -- and if you have a preferred term for it, I'd enjoy hearing it.

I didn't assume you didn't enjoy it... the question wasn't directed at you. It's funny you're talking about AP railroads and that's decidedly not what those pushing back against the nomenclature are talking about or advocating for. Perhaps that's why you take to the nomenclature so easily.

Yes, I know it wasn't directed at me, but if it were it fails because I do enjoy this kind of gaming. And, if a question fails depending on who it's addressed to, then it's not about the issue asked, but about who's asked.

I also talked about sandbox hexcrawls. I feel the term applies well to both. You can't just ignore the parts of what I say that don't support your claims and declare victory.

Lol... I can dislike something and not feel threatened by it but good jab thrown there. You believe it's an unromantic description. I believe it's an incorrect description. I've yet to see anything that convinces me your belief is more correct than my own. And no we haven't established that, we've established you conflate the games we are talking about with AP railroads and you enjoy said AP railroads.

What is incorrect about it? Does the GM not have notes, or a picture of the fictional setting and events in their head? Do they not express these to the players, usually in response to questions or action the PCs take, with what's revealed dependent on the specific question or action?

I mean, that seems to describe an awful lot of things pretty clearly. And it's differentiated from games where the players aren't finding out what the GM thinks the fictional setting or events are because the GM doesn't have one, yet. These observations aren't demeaning to play, they describe it, or at least a part of it because there's so much more to explore. Is the current phrasing unromantic? Is it a bit blunt? Yes, it is. It reminds me of one of my favorite poems, by T. S. Eliot, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," which opens with:

Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread against the sky
Like a patient etherized on a table;

Blunt, but quite evocative.

 

[prabe]

The second sentence is true. But what I think tends to matter is what is the nature and degree of such change? If it is confined to adding into the fiction that the PC performed a certain bodily movement, or that such a bodily movement had some local result, but then the GM "manipulates" other offscreen elements to confine or minimise or negate any broader ramifications of these things the player hasn't changed the fiction very much.

Not merely bodily movements, no. The PCs killed Turnik Steeltear, ending his (and the Masked Ones') reign of terror over the village of Callallah. Mo talked the city council of Pelsoreen into altering the city's laws on debt-slavery more than they'd originally intended to. There will be no more Masked Ones created; there are explicitly a few squads of them out in the world, but they're limited in number and lifespan. I will (though I haven't yet) re-write the player-facing document for Pelsoreen to reflect the change in debt-slavery.

There are various ways that my italicised thing in the previous paragraph can happen. One I associate with some modules/APs: the GM is instructed to do it in order to keep things "on track" - eg if the BBEG is killed early than a henchman takes over and keeps the plot going; if the PCs fail to save the world then some helpful NPC turns up and set things right; etc.

My dislike of AP-style play is, I think, well-documented by this point.

Another one I associate with sandboxing/"living world", in which the GM draws upon his/her sole-authored fiction that has not yet been revealed to the players (I also often call this secret backstory) to determine that the consequence of what the player successfully had his/her PC do is different from, or less significant than, the player intended. Eg the player does all the right things to learn the fate of his/her PC's long lost brother, and the GM reveals that it was a completely prosaic death in a minor plague five years earlier, with nothing more of consequence that follows.

I don't fridge characters (or other important things) the players create in their backstories (see below) without talking to the players, first. There's been a discussion of whether killing the PC's brother (in your example) is an uncool move by the GM; I'm not a big fan, but I think established expectations at the table matter the most for determining cool/uncool, here.

The next questions I would want to ask is who decided what the changes were? and what sorts of topics did the changes pertain to?

So, in the examples I gave above, the PC/s pretty much decided what they wanted to happen, and made it happen. Turnik Steeltear and the Masked Ones were connected to a character's backstory; Mo decided the changes the Pelsoreen City Council were implementing weren't enough, and made a concerted effort to end the city's practice of debt-slavery by force of persuasion.

As to topics: can the players make changes such as establishing that a 1,000 year old dungeon exists? Or can they only make changes that involve the future of the imagined world?

In the other campaign I'm running, a player established that there was a monastery/dojo in New Arvai called the Chiaroscuro Temple (I helped some with the name and the concept, as part of negotiating it into the world I'm running) as part of her backstory, and established that there had been an incursion from the Hells there. The history of the Temple goes way back, and the Hellish incursion plays well with the basic character of New Arvai. Another player, in his character's backstory, established a small town in a mountain pass. That town has been there for centuries.

So: In play, the players in my campaigns can change the future of the world but probably not the past; in chargen, the players can change the past of the world, but probably not directly the future.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Would you like to provide an example? Because if you're ad-hoc'ing and going off book then it's not really an AP railroad anymore is it?

Yes, of course it is. The Railroad part just means that things must go through specific stations and will always arrive at the end of the train. This, however, doesn't mean at all the setting details or event details are locked in and cannot be changed -- in many cases they have to be so that the next station is reached appropriately.

But, this specific example aside, what better definition of "changes the setting... independently of... player influence" is there than coming up with it before the players even make characters?

 

[Imaro]

No, using a suitable descriptive term is, though. What's the alterative proposed to describe the play where players use action declarations or just straight out ask the GM questions to learn what the GM thinks about the fiction? This is an important chunk of play in many styles -- vital, even -- and if you have a preferred term for it, I'd enjoy hearing it.

But this doesn't describe the playstyle that I and others in the thread are speaking to.

Yes, I know it wasn't directed at me, but if it were it fails because I do enjoy this kind of gaming. And, if a question fails depending on who it's addressed to, then it's not about the issue asked, but about who's asked.

It was about that person's subjective thoughts on the issue... Not yours. But ok you score a point... I guess.

What is incorrect about it? Does the GM not have notes, or a picture of the fictional setting and events in their head? Do they not express these to the players, usually in response to questions or action the PCs take, with what's revealed dependent on the specific question or action?

Numerous posters have stated their objections and why to the nomenclature. Me stating them over again isn't going to suddenly impart clarity or acceptance on your part. Again seems like a time for me to disengage with you about said subject.

 

[prabe]

Here's a crack at a definition for "Living World"

A "Living World Game" is a game in which the GM creates or changes the setting both independently of and in response to player influence.

So, that comes reasonably close to what I've done, and I do not consider myself to be running a "living world." Also, I fail to see much difference as far as the player's experience between a GM-created world and a published one (other than availability of world-lore).

 

[Imaro]

But, this specific example aside, what better definition of "changes the setting... independently of... player influence" is there than coming up with it before the players even make characters?

Random rolls... I use Vornheim to build out parts of the ruined city of Morthengaust in my game and it's done on the fly, not before the players make characters. There are numerous tools like this for sandbox play... are these considered DM notes as well?

 

[Imaro]

So, that comes reasonably close to what I've done, and I do not consider myself to be running a "living world." Also, I fail to see much difference as far as the player's experience between a GM-created world and a published one (other than availability of world-lore).

Strictly speaking I'm not sure there needs to be a difference, especially if the GM/DM is keeping the published world malleable and using it for his own ends. Perhaps I'm missing the crux of your statement, if so could you clarify. Also... what style of game do you consider yourself to be running?