What is *worldbuilding* for?

For those that are more familiar with LotR, did Gandalf blow his load every single encounter, because if he didn't then he didn't realise his archetype.

Sadras said:

For those that are more familiar with LotR, did Gandalf blow his load every single encounter, because if he didn't then he didn't realise his archetype.

Click to expand...

I can understand the criticism. If a character is designed to be able to do Cool Thing A and Awesome Thing B, but then rarely does either because of the way the game is designed in relation to resource management, then I can see how the character’s potential isn’t being fully realized.

To use Gandalf as an example...do we know of any limits to what he can do and how often? Not really. His abilities are basically summarized in the word “wizard” and then beyond that are nebulously defined at best. So it’s not the best example.

But if we look at another example...let’s say Spider-Man...then it becomes clearer. We know pretty specifically what Spider-Man can do...he’s super strong and agile, he can climb on walls and spin webs, and he has a spider-sense that warns him of danger.

Now imagine a Spider-Man who never once spins a web in a game because he can only do it 3 times a day, and he wants to keep the option to do so available in the event of a more dangerous encounter. In this case, a core concept of the character has become far less prominent solely due to game balance.

I can absolutely understand this conceptually.

To put it back in D&D terms, it seems like the 4E resource management of AEDU or something similar would be a better fit for someone with this concern than would a daily vancian or spell point based system. Because the character is more free to do what it was designed to do.

And don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating for a specific style. Just that I can underatand the criticism.

I said maybe 200 pages ago or so in this thread that these conversations become more about “sides” than about actually examining anything, and I think that’s really run rampant in the discussion. It seems like people aren’t even willing to allow themselves to understand what someone else is saying if they’re perceived to be on the “other side”. Neither “side” is innocent of this, and I’ve been plenty guilty of it myself, but wow it seems to have really ramped up lately.

Sadras said:

For those that are more familiar with LotR, did Gandalf blow his load every single encounter, because if he didn't then he didn't realise his archetype.

Click to expand...

LotR also more accurately likely has a magical fatigue system (or even a magical skills one) rather than a Vancian spells per day one, so I'm not sure if this satirical comparison is apt. If one sought to simulate magic in Middle Earth, D&D's magic system would probably be one of the last systems I would consider.

That said, the issue of "blowing his load" likely depends on the cognitive disconnect between what the game system seeks to simulate and what the player seeks to emulate with their character. You can play a wizard in D&D, but if you come into D&D expecting to play a Harry Potter-style wizard, then you will be sorely disappointed.

hawkeyefan said:

But if we look at another example...let’s say Spider-Man...then it becomes clearer. We know pretty specifically what Spider-Man can do...he’s super strong and agile, he can climb on walls and spin webs, and he has a spider-sense that warns him of danger.

Now imagine a Spider-Man who never once spins a web in a game because he can only do it 3 times a day, and he wants to keep the option to do so available in the event of a more dangerous encounter. In this case, a core concept of the character has become far less prominent solely due to game balance.

I can absolutely understand this conceptually.

Click to expand...

My mind raced to how this would be done in Fate. There are multiple subsystems and rule variations available in Fate, but I could see that "Webslingers" may be its own aspect as part of a powers package (see Venture City), but with "All Out of Web" as a trouble, such that the GM could potentially compel the character to be "out" of webslinging fluid or needing to refill in order to heighten the danger in a situation.

Aldarc said:

My mind raced to how this would be done in Fate. There are multiple subsystems and rule variations available in Fate, but I could see that "Webslingers" may be its own aspect as part of a powers package (see Venture City), but with "All Out of Web" as a trouble, such that the GM could potentially compel the character to be "out" of webslinging fluid or needing to refill in order to heighten the danger in a situation.

Click to expand...

Sure. The game mechanics can be designed to try and emulate the character/ability/genre in question. I think most games attempt to do that at the most basic level, but then other games take that goal and carry it further into the game's design.

In the case of Spider-Man, his supply of web fluid is never in question until there is a dramatic need for it to be so in the story. If a game is designed to replicate that moment of drama when he runs out of fluid, it's likely to play different where it's just a question of the player tracking the number of uses before the supply is exhausted. One is about the drama of the story, the other is about resource management of a game.

Back to Gandalf, D&D took the idea of a wizard and gave the class the ability to cast spells. That's one level. But Gandalf doesn't "run out" of spells in the books. We don't really know how his ability to cast spells may work, or what limits may be set upon it. I don't even know if the things he does are ever actually described as being "spells" as we tend to think of them. So D&D's spell system was not designed with Gandalf in mind, but rather took its cue from Vance's books. This is another level.

So there are limitations on the wizard class that are implemented because of the goals of the game design. And in this case, they are indeed drawn from genre, but it's a very specific instance of genre that would not likely come to mind when most people think of what a wizard might be, and how one might function in a game. If you ask the average person what is a wizard, most of them are not going to site Vance's system of memorization of spells in their reply.

All tangentially related to worldbuilding, I suppose, but I think how a game's mechanics deliver the genre or setting is a big part of the discussion.

hawkeyefan said:

Sure. The game mechanics can be designed to try and emulate the character/ability/genre in question. I think most games attempt to do that at the most basic level, but then other games take that goal and carry it further into the game's design.

In the case of Spider-Man, his supply of web fluid is never in question until there is a dramatic need for it to be so in the story. If a game is designed to replicate that moment of drama when he runs out of fluid, it's likely to play different where it's just a question of the player tracking the number of uses before the supply is exhausted. One is about the drama of the story, the other is about resource management of a game.

Back to Gandalf, D&D took the idea of a wizard and gave the class the ability to cast spells. That's one level. But Gandalf doesn't "run out" of spells in the books. We don't really know how his ability to cast spells may work, or what limits may be set upon it. I don't even know if the things he does are ever actually described as being "spells" as we tend to think of them. So D&D's spell system was not designed with Gandalf in mind, but rather took its cue from Vance's books. This is another level.

So there are limitations on the wizard class that are implemented because of the goals of the game design. And in this case, they are indeed drawn from genre, but it's a very specific instance of genre that would not likely come to mind when most people think of what a wizard might be, and how one might function in a game. If you ask the average person what is a wizard, most of them are not going to site Vance's system of memorization of spells in their reply.

All tangentially related to worldbuilding, I suppose, but I think how a game's mechanics deliver the genre or setting is a big part of the discussion.

Click to expand...

I thin this gets into playstyle as well though. Some people want to play Spiderman and some people want to play a Spiderman story. the person who wants to play Spiderman wants to play this superhero but create his own stories with his own decisions and see how they play out.

For example, Someone who wants to play Spiderman (or arguably play in Spiderman's world) but doesn't want to necessarily experience a Spiderman story could probably make a reasonable case for how incoherent the idea that Peter Parker has genius level intelligence but continues to forget to refill/account for the amount of web fluid he needs even after years of battling dangerously superpowered villains, or better yet why spider sense only seems to tingle right before you get hit. While someone who wants to play a Spiderman story probably accepts and even wants both of these events to happen at a dramatically appropriate time. But I'm not sure either allows the archetype to be more fully realized...

I also think this is why FATE and similar games sometimes rub people the wrong way, many people play so they can have that moment where instead of choosing the dramatically appropriate response (often viewed by those watching the movie or reading the comic book as a bad choice) they can experience what they would have done in said situation. games like FATE make getting that experience harder because they are set up to push for a certain type of story... a spiderman story where even a genius forgets to reload web fluid when going into battle with superpowerful and dangerous criminals and where spider sense always seems to kick in right before you get pounded on by a villain. I'm not sure how much appeal experiencing a specific story as opposed to experiencing a specific world has to the average gamer... but it's an interesting question.

Ovinomancer said:

How does the player not realize their archetype? What are player archetypes? I'm very confused.

Click to expand...

Are you confused, or are you snarkily and passive-aggressively pointing out that they should have said "character" rather than "player"?

And then, the following, rhetorical question: Are you sure your approach is a good use of anyone's time?

Imaro said:

I thin this gets into playstyle as well though. Some people want to play Spiderman and some people want to play a Spiderman story. the person who wants to play Spiderman wants to play this superhero but create his own stories with his own decisions and see how they play out.

For example, Someone who wants to play Spiderman (or arguably play in Spiderman's world) but doesn't want to necessarily experience a Spiderman story could probably make a reasonable case for how incoherent the idea that Peter Parker has genius level intelligence but continues to forget to refill/account for the amount of web fluid he needs even after years of battling dangerously superpowered villains, or better yet why spider sense only seems to tingle right before you get hit. While someone who wants to play a Spiderman story probably accepts and even wants both of these events to happen at a dramatically appropriate time. But I'm not sure either allows the archetype to be more fully realized...

I also think this is why FATE and similar games sometimes rub people the wrong way, many people play so they can have that moment where instead of choosing the dramatically appropriate response (often viewed by those watching the movie or reading the comic book as a bad choice) they can experience what they would have done in said situation. games like FATE make getting that experience harder because they are set up to push for a certain type of story... a spiderman story where even a genius forgets to reload web fluid when going into battle with superpowerful and dangerous criminals and where spider sense always seems to kick in right before you get pounded on by a villain. I'm not sure how much appeal experiencing a specific story as opposed to experiencing a specific world has to the average gamer... but it's an interesting question.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. there are different ways to approach the subject matter. And there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that there is a game happening. It's why I'm unconcerned about the fact that D&D doesn't really deliver a Gandalf as we know him from the books.

Imaro said:

I also think this is why FATE and similar games sometimes rub people the wrong way, many people play so they can have that moment where instead of choosing the dramatically appropriate response (often viewed by those watching the movie or reading the comic book as a bad choice) they can experience what they would have done in said situation. games like FATE make getting that experience harder because they are set up to push for a certain type of story... a spiderman story where even a genius forgets to reload web fluid when going into battle with superpowerful and dangerous criminals and where spider sense always seems to kick in right before you get pounded on by a villain. I'm not sure how much appeal experiencing a specific story as opposed to experiencing a specific world has to the average gamer... but it's an interesting question.

Click to expand...

Not sure if I agree here. If you are having these sort of compels in Fate, then it's because you as a player have selected these troubles as things you want to experience for your character. Plus, you have Fate points that allow you to resist these compels. But Fate wants to create interesting stories and not stories where everyone knows everything, makes every dramatically appropriate response, and suffer no flaws through their "mastery" of gaming the system.

Aldarc said:

Not sure if I agree here. If you are having these sort of compels in Fate, then it's because you as a player have selected these troubles as things you want to experience for your character. Plus, you have Fate points that allow you to resist these compels. But Fate wants to create interesting stories and not stories where everyone knows everything, makes every dramatically appropriate response, and suffer no flaws through their "mastery" of gaming the system.

Click to expand...

So what exactly don't you agree with? If I played Spiderman in FATE he would have Spiderman flaws as compels right? If I played him in say the old Marvel Superheroes game from TSR... no compels, right? I'm unclear on what exactly you don't agree with. In one instance the rules push/force me to playing through a Marvel Spiderman story while in the other I am playing Spiderman however I want to in the Marvel world.