Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 9047397" data-attributes="member: 85555">Most people use the term world in motion. I use living world. So my meaning is possibly slightly out of sync with other GMs here.  What I mean by that isn't what I would call updates or evolution of the fiction (though I think this may just be us conceptualizing things differently and using different language). What I mean is the world is active, the world is responsive and so are the NPCs, who operate with will like a player character. So it isn't like I have set pieces that keep gettin moved around or changed (i.e. the players went north so nix the final battle with the villain by the volcano and prep the one by the ice fortress). Reactive is a key point here, because it isn't just me updating, it is me reacting to what the players are actually doing and reacting to other events that unfold in the setting (the latter probably fits more with 'updating the fiction' description, though I would not use this language myself). Things arising in the world can happen a number of ways: 1) through an active NPC or power group (so the players have been doing things, the world has been moving, and I can easily discern based on that NPC A or group B will have a range of new choices before them and this one or that one seems most like the one they would pick or the one that is in their best interest if they have enough information to discern that, 2) Through me making decisions based on any number of procedures: through fiat (an earthquake strikes the capital!), through tables (this is my preferred method for things like global events or developments), through dice resolution (if there is an ongoing conflict between NPCs and or groups or armies, I will usually resolve this with whatever dice rolling methods seems like it  captures things most accurately and fairly. But I would say this isn't the only thing that is happening in this kind of campaign. Fair enough, but I wouldn't call these updates to the fiction. I just call them what they are: the duke's brother was murdered in the ambush the PCs set, so he now wants revenge and I consider all the ways he would try to gain it given his resources, the information he has about the PCs, etc. Here you are losing me though I think I get what you are saying. It isn't something I set to any kind of timer. And players aren't counting updates. This is a very organic process. Some things might be set to a kind of timer (random encounters are usually based on a somewhat predictable pattern here), and if there is an ongoing conflict I might be rolling once per week or simply once per session to see if there are developments. I am not particularly worried about keeping it on a clock though. I just don't find this problem to arise in practice. Again things progress organically, often in response to what players are doing. Naturally there are gong to be things they never know (though they will sense them). Yes their grasp will not always be perfect. But in life peoples' grasp isn't perfect. However I am always happy to address any questions the players have. So if they need me to re-explain relationships I can do that. If they need me to tell them what they would know about something I can do that. Like I said there is a conversation aspect to this that is also very important. Maybe other GMs would find this math useful or important. I wouldn't. It isn't anything I consider when I run a living world.</blockquote>

Verification