Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8244410" data-attributes="member: 85555">Well in terms of setting prep, there is usually a lot on the front end (at least for me). I thought I laid this out earlier but will quickly try to restate here (this may be fuzzy, simply because I lack time). I establish the setting in the manner I described before: often beginning with cosmology, then progressing to physical places (for instance the setting I made most recently was a flat world, square inside a kind of celestial dome). I take that map, put peoples on it and languages, and chart the development and movement of these things over centuries or millennia (this for me is really important because it leads to answers to questions like "what relics and ancient structures would be in this spot"). I chart he development of empires, etc. And then I move to mapping the present day of the setting: places, locations, institutions, groups, organizations (this is often a combination of mapping and notes). Then I flesh out my notes on groups and npcs, on specific locations, etc. For the living world concept, in my wuxia setting, the most important things to elaborate on and prepare were my sects, gangs, and religious institutions. When I get to the NPCs, I make a point of knowing their goals (something I also do for things like sects). This is a very quick sketch overview but that is just to get me to a starting point. Then I drop the players in the setting and see what they do. Things accrue as they take action. From session to session I am noting down all the important people they meet, what they do, who they form enemies with. I often rely on my Grudge tables when the players make enemies. When players explore and move around we rely on survival rolls (which I have spoken about in other posts and in a blog entry). But the important thing is, as the players come into contact with various NPCs, groups and organizations, I am treating them as volitional pieces on the board (my language for that is living adventure and the NPCs live). This creates a synergy as friendships, alliances, resentments and enemies are made. I don't know what will happen until the rubber hits the road. But I am guided by the goals and personalities of my living NPCs and institutions, by the logic of the world, by a sense of openness and fairness to what PCs try to do, by a sense of what the reality ought to be (i.e. 'yes I suppose they would have pearl farms here', 'No they don't practice any form of monotheism in this village'), by system, and dice. For me to explain how you do this, I would probably need to have a conversation with you. I can't really give you isight if I am not getting immediate responses to any points I raise (for all I know for example I lost you in the first paragraph and you have three or four questions that need answering before I can even get to paragraph two: or in my haste I am forgetting details or being cloudy). Also I do think this is the style of play you kind of have to experience as a player before you can really do it well as a GM (because you need to see what works and what doesn't work on the player end). Then you need to learn by doing. It took me a bit to get the hang of (and I often stared out in very limited ways just to make things manageable: i.e. just running a really small sandbox on a piece of graph paper for instance). And some GMs just have  a hard time with this style (just like I have a hard time with doing voices or getting deep into the performance of my NPCs like say Mercer does). If it is a style that doesn't click with how you see things (I tend to be very historically minded, very into genre, and very into impulse and intuition), it just might not be a good fit. I am not saying Living World is great, or better than other styles. My only contention is it exists and it is possible, and for those with my sensibilities it can be a lot of fun.</blockquote>

Verification