I was discussing some bit of immersion on the RPGsite, and a term I have used for decades caught some traction in the discussion, even bringing up another thread.
The discussion centered around the techniques for creating the feel that the PCs are part of a larger organism, that things are moving with or without the player's input, especially in a Sandbox format.
Excellent Bat in the Attic (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2010/05/worlds-in-motion.html) post about using it.
here[ (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17363) is the original spot where is shows up. I think some of the repsonses are also useful.
Are there any methods or approaches other GM's take to achieve this? Any historical notes from the past, or any games you want to mention thatit was used well, or should have been used?
The link to therpgsite just links back to this thread.
fixed that.
I don't have any major experiences per se, although when I last was DMing, I did so in Forgotten Realms and every time the players did something I tried to work in some way for them to learn that events I had mentioned as potential adventures were now changing - different dungeons were being raided; assaults on Tethyr were taking place and major cities were being overrun; if they left the dungeon after killing a bunch of enemies, they often would return to see a more alert patrol searching for their fallen comrades and/or those who had slain them. It was perhaps the most difficult part of the process for me, though.
I'm big into chaos theory and am seriously considering looking into it for research with my degree; it seems to tie in somewhat to the whole world in motion idea, although more so with the actions of the players. I find that creating that feel of having a world constantly moving around you and having the actions of the players have realistic consequences is the biggest obstacle for me as a DM - in fact there are a few different campaigns that I've wanted to run in the past, including a spec ops, mid-20th century sci-fi thing that was essentially military X-Files, that I felt unable to run well simply because it seemed the game would require too much of a living, breathing world.
Quote from: FREAKINAWESOMEHORSEI don't have any major experiences per se, although when I last was DMing, I did so in Forgotten Realms and every time the players did something I tried to work in some way for them to learn that events I had mentioned as potential adventures were now changing - different dungeons were being raided; assaults on Tethyr were taking place and major cities were being overrun; if they left the dungeon after killing a bunch of enemies, they often would return to see a more alert patrol searching for their fallen comrades and/or those who had slain them. It was perhaps the most difficult part of the process for me, though.
I'm big into chaos theory and am seriously considering looking into it for research with my degree; it seems to tie in somewhat to the whole world in motion idea, although more so with the actions of the players. I find that creating that feel of having a world constantly moving around you and having the actions of the players have realistic consequences is the biggest obstacle for me as a DM - in fact there are a few different campaigns that I've wanted to run in the past, including a spec ops, mid-20th century sci-fi thing that was essentially military X-Files, that I felt unable to run well simply because it seemed the game would require too much of a living, breathing world.
I think it is an obstacle for many GMs, actually, from whay I am reading in many sites. It is also harder in some game types, since the larger the setting, the more 'data' that has to be constantly put into play and kept track of.
I like the idea of chaos theory as world in motion; it makes some sense.
And the thing about the smaller scale, like the way a raided area responds, is also really important. I go overboard with that stuff; like reeastblishing command structures, etc, but I think it comes from playing with some module lovers when I was much younger, who just went by the room descriptions no matter how many time we tromped in and out...
I had one GM a couple of years ago who was the master of this style of game. It was an Arcana Evolved/Unearthed Game (Monte Cook's variant player's handbook) with a lot of players (like 8 ). He'd run campaigns in the past in the same version of the world, so previous players were major NPCs and political players. He kept a massive binder full of notes detailing changes to the world we'd made. One time a player made up a cult as a front for some other clandestine doings we were involved with. A few sessions later, the cult had really caught on, and suddenly had a lot more members and a shrine and motives and resources.
Quote from: SteerpikeI had one GM a couple of years ago who was the master of this style of game. It was an Arcana Evolved/Unearthed Game (Monte Cook's variant player's handbook) with a lot of players (like 8). He'd run campaigns in the past in the same version of the world, so previous players were major NPCs and political players. He kept a massive binder full of notes detailing changes to the world we'd made. One time a player made up a cult as a front for some other clandestine doings we were involved with. A few sessions later, the cult had really caught on, and suddenly had a lot more members and a shrine and motives and resources.
This kind of campaign can really have an effect on budding GMs...
The religious-cult thing is a really great example of how the world can move but also how the players can interact with that motion, nudging it along.
Also, having old surviving PCs become NPCs or RCs (remote controlled) contributes to this seamless feel.
Steerpike, is there anything your characters did that nudged along the world's path?
One time we were rescuing a community from an oncoming army (a few days away) through a tunnel-system, but we had to improvise a lift made from bits and pieces in order to get down a cliff face. My character was an Akashic - a skill-monkey who could pull knowledge and skills out of the Akashic Field, a little bit like bardic knowledge. My character designed and built (with some help) a crude lift system to help get the villagers down. Those displaced villagers then settled a new region and started anew village which we could visit later on. So, essentially, my character indirectly founded a new town.
I like this style of play, as it lends credibility and realism to the world, and makes it feel like there is a living, breathing world instead of just a static environment that only responds to player actions. However, I feel that the game should still center on the players, regardless of what is going on in the background. While the style of GM that just reads out of the module and doesn't react one bit to what the players are doing is not generally desirable, I think the other side of this needs to be mentioned as well, where the players feel like they're in a world that they have no control over and the entire story is essentially being run by powerful NPCs.
It's probably not as common of a problem, but I feel the need to mention it if only because quite some time ago I played Vampire (that is, VtM, not VtR, so you can tell it *was* quite some time ago) with a Storyteller (GM) who went entirely too far the other way. There were a great many factions and powerful entities, and interesting things going on in the background, which started off making it seem like this was going to be a very interesting and fun tale to RP. The problem was, the PCs were, for the most part, just observers. The plot was going to happen no matter what we did. In some ways, this is the "world in motion" taken to extremes, the motion becoming so strong that it's a railroad. I should clear up, though, that I don't believe this sort of railroading is an inherent problem with a "world in motion" style of running the game. It just comes from a GM being too self-absorbed, probably, and being more interested in playing his interesting NPCs as PCs, more or less, rather than running the game for the real PCs.
Quote from: SteerpikeOne time we were rescuing a community from an oncoming army (a few days away) through a tunnel-system, but we had to improvise a lift made from bits and pieces in order to get down a cliff face. My character was an Akashic - a skill-monkey who could pull knowledge and skills out of the Akashic Field, a little bit like bardic knowledge. My character designed and built (with some help) a crude lift system to help get the villagers down. Those displaced villagers then settled a new region and started anew village which we could visit later on. So, essentially, my character indirectly founded a new town.
Now that is tremendous. Both the idea of the Akashic, and especially the moving and founding of a village, that as you said...was a place you could visit later on...
thus being part of the 'World in Motion' stream. Very cool....
Sparkletwist, I know what you mean.
The aforementioned game was mostly very excellent; the world in motion thing worked very well and we always felt like we could contribute to the story and the plot. Sometimes, though, the GM went too far in the other direction, especially towards the end of one campaign (I played a couple in his persistent universe, with a total of 3 different characters). We kept running into these uber-powerful creatures and entities which all had very interesting motivations and whatnot, but after awhile we really started to feel rather impotent, like we were at the bottom of the food chain, not really the movers and shakers. It got better towards the very end, but for awhile it was kind of frustrating: it wasn't so much that we couldn't defeat the creatures/NPCs we met in combat (most of the time we wouldn't have been interested in fighting anyway), but that it started to feel like we were just pawns in a much more interesting game being played by the NPCs...
Quote from: sparkletwistI like this style of play, as it lends credibility and realism to the world, and makes it feel like there is a living, breathing world instead of just a static environment that only responds to player actions. However, I feel that the game should still center on the players, regardless of what is going on in the background. While the style of GM that just reads out of the module and doesn't react one bit to what the players are doing is not generally desirable, I think the other side of this needs to be mentioned as well, where the players feel like they're in a world that they have no control over and the entire story is essentially being run by powerful NPCs.
It's probably not as common of a problem, but I feel the need to mention it if only because quite some time ago I played Vampire (that is, VtM, not VtR, so you can tell it *was* quite some time ago) with a Storyteller (GM) who went entirely too far the other way. There were a great many factions and powerful entities, and interesting things going on in the background, which started off making it seem like this was going to be a very interesting and fun tale to RP. The problem was, the PCs were, for the most part, just observers. The plot was going to happen no matter what we did. In some ways, this is the "world in motion" taken to extremes, the motion becoming so strong that it's a railroad. I should clear up, though, that I don't believe this sort of railroading is an inherent problem with a "world in motion" style of running the game. It just comes from a GM being too self-absorbed, probably, and being more interested in playing his interesting NPCs as PCs, more or less, rather than running the game for the real PCs.
I actually had the exact same thing happen to me in a VtM game (also VtM and not VtR). It seems that the White Wolf series are much more prone to this (or at least the three major ones are). Really this goes entirely beyond the "world in motion" concept and steps into the realm of someone using a "game" as a ploy to get people to pay attention to a story they have in mind that they think is FREAKIN' AWESOME. This is actually something that the DM needs to be very careful of... I can agree that it should ultimately still be about the players, and that's probably something that any GM should keep in mind while attempting to make their world fluid.
Do you guys think that a bunch of members could get a community project up and running involving writing a resource for this sort of thing? It'd go right along with the title and mission. :D
Quote from: SteerpikeSparkletwist, I know what you mean.
The aforementioned game was mostly very excellent; the world in motion thing worked very well and we always felt like we could contribute to the story and the plot. Sometimes, though, the GM went too far in the other direction, especially towards the end of one campaign (I played a couple in his persistent universe, with a total of 3 different characters). We kept running into these uber-powerful creatures and entities which all had very interesting motivations and whatnot, but after awhile we really started to feel rather impotent, like we were at the bottom of the food chain, not really the movers and shakers. It got better towards the very end, but for awhile it was kind of frustrating: it wasn't so much that we couldn't defeat the creatures/NPCs we met in combat (most of the time we wouldn't have been interested in fighting anyway), but that it started to feel like we were just pawns in a much more interesting game being played by the NPCs...
And this could be called,
"Balancing the World in Mortion with The Characters as Protagonists".Which is actually a real balancing act, when you get good at the WiM DM skill. The better and more compelling the storyline(s) become , and the better you become at juggling multiple levels of casue and effect datapoints all around the locales of the PCs, the more willing you have to be to drop everything and allow the PCs to become the protagonists.
Steerpike and Sparkle are actually talking about slightly different issues, or the same issue with different root causes. Sparkle is referring to to what I am alluding to above, the GM falling in love with their own story, treating the game as too much their pure creative outlet and not enough the collaborative creative outlet.
(I always laugh when a GM (sometimes it is still me) complains that the PCs 'broke' part of a storyline or plot...that what the game is for, that's what they are supposed to do)
Steerpike's issue is similar, but it ties into the growth curve of a ruleset. The larger the distance between common folk and Pcs and higher levels of PCs, the larger the 'Mortality gap', the more that power gap affects the reality of the plotline.
In a very quick example, it becomes very clear to anyone who has played a 'High Mortality gap' game that levelled folk run the world, and that personal power translates into political/social power. So the Movers and shakers are always higher power, and this makes the balance mentioned above, the World in Motion vs the Characters as Protagonists MUCH harder to achieve realistically.
Ironically I think the issue was actually complicated by one of my characters' abilities. He was a Witch, which in this world meant he had the ability to sense someone else's power: in game terms, this meant I could tell someone's level just by looking at them for a few moments. So whereas before we might get a vague sense of someone's power based on their description, now we actually knew that we were faced with these daunting 18th level characters...
I think that presenting a world in motion is very important to making a consistent world feel believable, even if it is utterly fantastic. It is also very difficult to do well, with the issues mentioned here only some of the possible ones that could arise.
Its been since D&D 2e that I did something for this. I created a two month calendar and posted major events that would occur simultaneously with PC party. Most events would occur as preplanned, and would come as news to the PCs, or changes in normal encounters - like a Peasant Revolt was occuring and the party could find themselves a party of interest to authorities moreso than other times. If the party somehow got directly involved with a planned event, their involvement could change the results of the preplanned event and other events directly or indirectly related could also be affected.
By doing 2 months in advance, I could place lots of detail that makes the world in motion seem very real and tangible. However, by only doing 2 months, if the PCs changed the chain of events, then though I would have to redo the next month's / next week's plans it was not such a pain. It would be if I'd have pre-planned an entire year.
I think having a simultaneous calendar of events helped create that world in motion feel to the game, and it did add a sense of depth in that old campaign (15 years or so ago).
GP
Back when I played the game, I had rather open-ended plot with intended checkpoints that, if met, prompted certain storylines, and if not, I helped direct a new direction based on the players' actions. To complete immersion, I had references to characters the players would never meet, places they would never go to, and events they had no part in, all of which could dramatically affect them or could be entirely irrelevant depending on the circumstance. By reminding the players that the world doesn't necessarily center around them while simultaneously ensuring that their actions have lasting and real consequences, verisimilitude was accomplished.
For follow-up adventures and later campaigns, I incorporated elements of previous campaigns, but the "canon" version of events was often altered to fit the setting's needs. This was the best of both worlds, as I didn't railroad the previous campaign to fit my model of events, but still managed to accomplish the overall "intent" of the setting narrative by advancing the story in a way I deemed fit (often heavily altered from my original plan, but likewise not a complete reflection of the campaign's events. Think of it as a happy middle ground between them.) Former characters showed up, but the understanding was that as an NPC, the character might have had a new personality, a rewritten history, and a different role in the world, but the spirit of the character would usually remain similar and the bit of nostalgia helped create a tangible reward for previous involvement in a campaign.
Quote from: SteerpikeIronically I think the issue was actually complicated by one of my characters' abilities. He was a Witch, which in this world meant he had the ability to sense someone else's power: in game terms, this meant I could tell someone's level just by looking at them for a few moments. So whereas before we might get a vague sense of someone's power based on their description, now we actually knew that we were faced with these daunting 18th level characters...
Complicates the issue, yes.
But I stand by the earlier contention that the absoulte power differential between a level 18 NPC and a few level 3 characters in a group is one of the things that causes the issue.
After you play RPGs for a while, the 'whole personal power=social power' thing becomes more and more apparent, and difficult.
I remember arguing with a GM years ago about his D&D monarchies in a setting, asking how the hereditary King did enough adventuring to become 12th level. Like anyone was going to let the guy go out and fight all these creatures, etc...but if he wasn't high level, why would all his high-power gentry back him.
That feeling that things are happeniing is so cool and immersive, but PCs in a world where the mortality curve is high can't have much of an effect on the movers and the shakers without getting splatted.
Quote from: Gamer PrintshopIts been since D&D 2e that I did something for this. I created a two month calendar and posted major events that would occur simultaneously with PC party. Most events would occur as preplanned, and would come as news to the PCs, or changes in normal encounters - like a Peasant Revolt was occuring and the party could find themselves a party of interest to authorities moreso than other times. If the party somehow got directly involved with a planned event, their involvement could change the results of the preplanned event and other events directly or indirectly related could also be affected.
By doing 2 months in advance, I could place lots of detail that makes the world in motion seem very real and tangible. However, by only doing 2 months, if the PCs changed the chain of events, then though I would have to redo the next month's / next week's plans it was not such a pain. It would be if I'd have pre-planned an entire year.
I think having a simultaneous calendar of events helped create that world in motion feel to the game, and it did add a sense of depth in that old campaign (15 years or so ago).
GP
I agree with this, and do something very similar.
I also find that posting the recent events online in a calendar (basically revealing a bit at a time) helps keep them in the loop and on task and target.
PCs can be SO forgetful.
Quote from: Elven DoritosBack when I played the game, I had rather open-ended plot with intended checkpoints that, if met, prompted certain storylines, and if not, I helped direct a new direction based on the players' actions. To complete immersion, I had references to characters the players would never meet, places they would never go to, and events they had no part in, all of which could dramatically affect them or could be entirely irrelevant depending on the circumstance. By reminding the players that the world doesn't necessarily center around them while simultaneously ensuring that their actions have lasting and real consequences, verisimilitude was accomplished.
For follow-up adventures and later campaigns, I incorporated elements of previous campaigns, but the "canon" version of events was often altered to fit the setting's needs. This was the best of both worlds, as I didn't railroad the previous campaign to fit my model of events, but still managed to accomplish the overall "intent" of the setting narrative by advancing the story in a way I deemed fit (often heavily altered from my original plan, but likewise not a complete reflection of the campaign's events. Think of it as a happy middle ground between them.) Former characters showed up, but the understanding was that as an NPC, the player might have had a new personality, a rewritten history, and a different role in the world, but the spirit of the character would usually remain similar and the bit of nostalgia helped create a tangible reward for previous involvement in a campaign.
I bolded your great comment there.
I think that says a lot.
I also like the 'checkpoint' ideas, nexus points in the plotlines that are set to go on, but very based on the possible intervention of the PCs. Were these larger, smaller, or midsized plots?
Quote from: LordVreegI also like the 'checkpoint' ideas, nexus points in the plotlines that are set to go on, but very based on the possible intervention of the PCs. Were these larger, smaller, or midsized plots?
There was definitely an overarching, "epic" narrative to which several small episodic storylines fed into, and each of those had their own checkpoints. For instance, let's say an important element of the story is whether or not the PCs visit a Temple of Zoloban in the Aronian deserts by a particular date. The PCs are given clues to head to this location, but are in no way forced, and events happen there whether or not they show up- an evil Aronian warlord may arrive and take the artifact that they need, or a dragon may come and collapse the place. Likewise, if they were to somehow slay the dragon or kill the warlord before either can reach the destination, it averts their respective catastrophe, and gives them more time to gather the artifact.