Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 8238190" data-attributes="member: 85870">The issue is, even if I accept that the "living world" conception can exist as an idea outside of the "shared fiction taking place at the table," it's only explorable by the GM. Which is lovely for the GM, to explore the wonderful conception of the world they've created inside their own head. And lest you think I'm being overly critical, I've done it myself, dozens and dozens of times. It is a lovely experience to spend time inside my own headspace, imagining and dreaming of this fictional place I've generated.But the players don't get to explore that conception. They only get to explore the game fiction happening at the table in front of them. The sole, single, and ONLY avenue the players have for exploration is through the parsed-down version of the ur-"living world" being given to them through the GM.I understand what you're trying to do with the video game analogy. You're trying to separate, for example, the actual in-game play of Skyrim---the things players see and do and interact with---from the source code that powers the game. Player stuff = "the fiction at the table,"; source code = "The GM's conception of the living world". And on a certain level, I can kind-of, sort-of see the the connection.But isn't it also fascinating that Skyrim is hands-down the game that has been modded more than any other game in the history of video gaming. And why is that? Because the players want to experience things that its original designers never thought of in the first place. To take the software analogy further, the point of agile software development in today's world is avoid having to do huge, monolithic source code builds and then "waterfall" them down. The goal is to build a minimum viable product, get acceptance from the users, and then iterate from there. Which, oddly enough, is pretty much exactly how Ironsworn and Dungeon World prioritize world-building.For me, I finally just realized that the conceit of the "living world" is fraught with peril for RPG play. As [USER=5142]@Aldarc[/USER] noted, there's a mysticism, or a romanticizing about the concept that too often gets abused by GMs the world over to create sub-par gaming experiences.And when I use the word conceit in reference to the notion of a "living world," it is very much intentional. I've spent a great deal of time analyzing my own experiences as a GM trying to run a "living world" campaign (which I've done six or seven times now). In those analyses, I realized that if I was being 100% completely honest, that there is a level of conceit involved. There's an inherent hubris---perhaps mild, and ultimately harmless, but hubris nonetheless---in believing that my conception of the game world is so amazing and precious and special that it's worth being explored on its own merit. And I know you've said that you don't really feel your world is all that "precious" to you; that you try to downplay and curb that instinct. But isn't it still there? Just a little?And in doing those same analyses, if I was likewise being 100% honest, the things the players cared most about were the things they actually interacted with themselves, not the "hidden backstory" or "living world" elements. Player engagement happened when they had something to care about within the shared fiction. And yes, creating a massive "living world" construct prior to play certainly gives players lots of potential things to care about. But it also gives fuel to the GM to railroad or override things the players care about. Or maybe the GM picks the wrong things. Or maybe the players don't really know what it is they want---they change their minds 1/3 of the way through the campaign, and now everything from Session Zero is now null and void. The point of the syllogism was that I was being dishonest with myself about how I was prioritizing the prefabricated "living world" elements. If everything is a construct---even the "living world"---then what matters is what is considered true within the shared fiction. And why were my prefabricated "living world" elements receiving privileged status as in-fiction "truth"? Only because the natural asssumption is that it's the GM's call to say so in the first place.And if I was truly interested in the enjoyment of my players, that I had to be willing to let go of that conceit.</blockquote>

Verification