Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 8257792" data-attributes="member: 6698278">Well I get that these terms on all sides are divisive at times.  I was pointing out that living world means something that absolutely would exclude a Story Now game.   I also admit that it means what it means purely in a metagame way.  It's just a term picked up and used.   So I can see how on both sides of the fence these terms in English mean different things than their metagame definition.So sure anyone in any game could feel a strong sense of verisimilitude and a sense that the imaginary world feels real to them.  They may even liken that to the idea of a living world.But, historically the term has taken on a metagame meaning.  Perhaps it took on this meaning in an era where that was the well known way to get to the previous paragraphs feeling about a game.It is accurate when you consider that as a gamist term it means that.  That is my point.  There is a problem with the term because it's gamist understanding doesn't fit perfectly with it's English definition.   Just like fiction, protagonism, etc etc etc....Yes.  There is a difference.  The answer should be in most instances something the GM knows because it's been established by being put in his notes.   Now if on some rare occasion, the GM has to improv then that is an unfortunate result if it's anything beyond trivial details.   If it is the kind of question a PC could ask about a nation three hundred miles away, then you should know the answer.  Some questions are things a PC likely wouldn't know.I think objectively for people playing in my style that a GM who has it written down will give better answers on average over time.   I will say that theoretically it is possible to present a world in the exact same way whether it is ad lib or not.  I suspect if God were a GM he could do this.  I've never met a GM who I couldn't spot doing this in a single session and often within ten minutes.   I will also say that there are those who do write stuff down who still do it poorly.  Don't equate life limitations with a lack of desire.  Some GMs are limited on time and they play frequently.  I tend to design a world far in advance of even letting anyone know I am starting a campaign.   And when I do create a new world I tend to either be using another or taking a break.  I do think a good campaign setting carefully crafted can be used across more than one campaign.So yes it is a dial.  Some do more and some less.  Perhaps for some people it's based on their comfort level.   Ideally this is the order of preference for information flowing from the GM.    Written in Notes > Generated Randomly but based on Notes > Improv'd but with strong input from notes > Improv'dI would always prefer to move up if it is possible.  But the only way to really model a world would be on a complexity level equal to a world which of course we cannot do.  So we circle out.Sandbox Area -  A great level of detail.  Tons of detailed NPCs with motivations and personalities including good and bad guys.   Lots of adventures of different sorts.   You improv here very little.  Even so if one of my PCs approaches an NPC in a tavern, I likely won't have his favorite drink recorded.  I will likely just randomly roll based on his wealth.Surrounding Nations/Cities -  Here the detail is Gazateer+.   If the nations are close by then I know the big shots and the movers and shakers.  Those will enter and leave my sandbox on occasion.  I will have at least a map of the major cities.   I'll know what they trade, what industry they are into, there level of lawlessness, their religions, etc....Farther afield Nations - Here the detail is Gazateer level.  Maybe I'd detail an NPC who is so significant that he could influence the sandbox.  Over time I am constantly improving and expanding.  So the sandbox might eventually include a nearby city in which case I'd have it detailed at that point.Sure.  Your words are perfect English uses.   That is why everyone just accepted them and no one pushed back.  Oh wait.I've said it on a variety of occasions.  A world that 1. Exists in places the PCs have not been or even know about.  Exists as in detailed in the notes.  2. Changes over time even without PC stimuli.I would say that you might think of it as a dial.  Meaning it's more living the more you have it detailed and the better you have it change.  Our goal is to simulate well a world so the PCs can move around in it and live their lives in a realistic way.   You are wanting a boolean answer when in reality it's like saying a movie was good.  Well how good?  Casablanca good or just good enough to watch but not great?</blockquote>

Verification