What is *worldbuilding* for?

Sadras said:

and



My point was we did see a little of what Gandalf could do, and he never brought that level of power everytime to every encounter. I still think his class was realised.

And [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] you make a good point regarding the Harry Potter/Gandalf comment.



Guilty.

Click to expand...

Yes. We know that Gandalf was amazingly powerful. He single handedly killed a Balrog(Balor) in a fight that lasted days. This Balrog came out and killed or forced an entire city of dwarves, armed with dwarven weapons and armor(better than any but the best elven smiths) to flee. No 5th level PC in any edition of D&D is taking on a Balor for even 10 rounds(1-10 minutes depending on the system), let alone 2 days. The length of the fight does mean that [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is probably correct and Gandalf was on some sort of fatigue/spell point system.

Maxperson said:

But presumably, he wouldn't be playing Spiderman in Fate, because it rubs him the wrong way and he can't have the experience he wants. Your counter doesn't really counter his statement. Instead it just means that most people who play Fate are of the type that prefers the dramatic story.

Click to expand...

That is true enough, but my understanding of this hypothetical person in this scenario is that the reason that Fate rubs them the wrong way is because of how those troubles/compels run counter to the experiences they want for their character. But again that seems counterintuitive to how Fate works given how troubles are self-selected by the player for their character. In other words, we may ask, "Why did the player pick these troubles for their character at all if the player does not want their character to be troubled by them?" I suppose that is disconnect that I am having with Imaro's otherwise good summation.

Aldarc said:

That is true enough, but my understanding of this hypothetical person in this scenario is that the reason that Fate rubs them the wrong way is because of how those troubles/compels run counter to the experiences they want for their character. But again that seems counterintuitive to how Fate works given how troubles are self-selected by the player for their character. In other words, we may ask, "Why did the player pick these troubles for their character at all if the player does not want their character to be troubled by them?" I suppose that is disconnect that I am having with Imaro's otherwise good summation.

Click to expand...

I took the original comment to be more about the system/mechanic in general. Not about specific compels but just about them in general.

I think there is something to offer for both approaches; one that tries to deliver an experience that feels like the fiction it draws upon, and another that sheds some tropes to allow gamers to play however they want.

To tie it back to worldbuilding...it seems pretty similar to me. I can see value in both approaches; one where the world is largely predetermined prior to the start of play, and another that largely builds the world through play.

In either case, it would seem odd to take one approach and then expect it to deliver the result of the other approach. And I think that’s the cause of most of the tension throughout the discussion.

hawkeyefan said:

I took the original comment to be more about the system/mechanic in general. Not about specific compels but just about them in general.

Click to expand...

Thank you and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] for your own readings. That helps.

I think there is something to offer for both approaches; one that tries to deliver an experience that feels like the fiction it draws upon, and another that sheds some tropes to allow gamers to play however they want.

Click to expand...

Though I understand your intent, at least presumably, I do take some issue with the bold, namely that it somewhat contradicts the rest of your statements. System and mechanics will inherently place limitations on how a player can play such that the idea that one system permits players to play their character "however they want" while the other doesn't seems iffy.

But nice tie-ins with overarching topic.

Maxperson said:

Yes. We know that Gandalf was amazingly powerful. He single handedly killed a Balrog(Balor) in a fight that lasted days.

Click to expand...

As we know, because he told us about it, what we saw was both of them apparently fall to their deaths....

This Balrog came out and killed or forced an entire city of dwarves, armed with dwarven weapons and armor(better than any but the best elven smiths) to flee.

Click to expand...

According to the exposition provided by Gandalf...

No 5th level PC in any edition of D&D is taking on a Balor for even 10 rounds(1-10 minutes depending on the system),

Click to expand...

A 5th level magic-user who was freakishly lucky rolling for 1e psionics could demolish a Type VI demon, the main problem being that it'd be over very quickly, indeed, since pionic-on-psionic combat progressed in segments...

...or, after they fell off the bridge, the oddly wingless & non-teleporting Balrog could have plumetted to its death, while Gandalf cut the whip with Glamdring, then cast Feather Fall.

let alone 2 days. The length of the fight does mean that [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is probably correct and Gandalf was on some sort of fatigue/spell point system.

Click to expand...

Old-school D&D caught a lot of flack for using 1-min rounds, but it did mean the idea, even if not the feel, of a long battle was modeled to a greater extent than it's contemporaries, who, for the sake of 'realism' (today, we'd say 'verisimilitude,' 'immersions,' 'simulationism,' and 'associated' mechanics, of course ) went with 12, 6, even one-second rounds.

Aldarc said:

I do mostly agree with your summation. My point of contention is how the Troubles/Compels are being characterized as hurdles for play. Troubles are self-selected to engender the play experiences the player wants for their character. So it seems unintuitive for how Fate works to say that Troubles are preventing a player from playing their character as they envision them. Why should a player be frustrated by Troubles they selected themselves?

Click to expand...

Well as @Maxperson and @Hawkeye stated in earlier posts I was moreso talking at a high system level. The thing is there are games where there are no mechanics to dictate or push your character's behavior and there are games (most being , at least IMHE, narrativist games that want to deliver "story") where your character's personality/behavior is pushed or even forced in certain directions. For people who don't want the mechanics enforcing or pushing for particular behaviors on their characters...these games don't allow them to play the way they want to at a system level.

Now to address troubles and compels specifically in FATE and why I feel that even when self selected they can be a hurdle...
First let's look at FATE points...

FATE SRD; said:

Fate Points
You use tokens to represent how many fate points you have at any given time during play. Fate points are one of your most important resources in Fate—they’re a measure of how much influence you have to make the story go in your character’s favor.

You can spend fate points to invoke an aspect, to declare a story detail, or to activate certain powerful stunts.

You earn fate points by accepting a compel on one of your aspects.

Click to expand...

Emphasis mine... so FATE sets up a situation where FATE points are necessary to use your abilities... a vital meta-currency. Contrast this with D&D 5e's inspiration where inspiration points give you advantage on an roll but aren't necessary to actually use a class ability.

Next up let's look at how one receives FATE points for compelling troubles...

FATE SRD; said:

Compels
Sometimes (in fact, probably often), you’ll find yourself in a situation where an aspect complicates your character’s life and creates unexpected drama. When that happens, the GM will suggest a potential complication that might arise. This is called a compel.

Sometimes, a compel means your character automatically fails at some goal, or your character’s choices are restricted, or simply that unintended consequences cloud whatever your character does. You might negotiate back and forth on the details a little, to arrive at what would be most appropriate and dramatic in the moment.

Once you’ve agreed to accept the complication, you get a fate point for your troubles. If you want, you can pay a fate point to prevent the complication from happening, but it is not recommended that you do that very often—you’ll probably need that fate point later, and getting compelled brings drama (and hence, fun) into your game’s story.

Players, you’re going to call for a compel when you want there to be a complication in a decision you’ve just made, if it’s related to one of your aspects. GMs, you’re going to call for a compel when you make the world respond to the characters in a complicated or dramatic way.

Anyone at the table is free to suggest when a compel might be appropriate for any character (including their own). GMs, you have the final word on whether or not a compel is valid. And speak up if you see that a compel happened naturally as a result of play, but no fate points were awarded.

Click to expand...

So the GM or player suggests a compel and if you accept it you get a FATE point... simple enough and not all that different form D&D 5e's inspiration which is awarded by the GM (or the players themselves if using the variant in the DMG) after the player has played out his flaw. Of course the big difference is if the player doesn't want to play out his flaw at the specific time the GM compels him. In D&D 5e there is no adverse effect for choosing not to play out ones flaws you just don't get the advantage of inspiration on a roll (and if you have inspiration already there's no adverse effect whatsoever).

However in FATE you have to pay a Fate point in order to decline the compel. So not only are you not receiving a FATE point but you are also loosing one. This is a pretty big incentive (and actually becomes force if you're out of FATE points) to align with the DM's created and directed expression of your troubles. While in 5e how your flaws manifest and whether you choose to express them at any particular moment in the game is all under the control of the player with little to no force being exerted by the DM. This is what I mean when I say some games allow you to play your character the way you want vs. some forcing your character to play out a certain way in the name of "story".

The FATE rules pretty much state upfront that this engineered story is a desired outcome of the game when discussing the FATE point economy... emphasis mine.

FATE SRD; said:

Fate Point Economy
For the most part, the use of aspects revolves around fate points. You indicate your supply of fate points by using tokens, such as poker chips, glass beads, or other markers.

Ideally, you want a consistent ebb and flow of fate points going on throughout your sessions. Players spend them in order to be awesome in a crucial moment, and they get them back when their lives get dramatic and complicated. So if your fate points are flowing the way they’re supposed to, you’ll end up with these cycles of triumphs and setbacks that make for a fun and interesting story.

Click to expand...

Aldarc said:

Also, it kinda sounds - and here I do exaggerate - like you are depicting the other side as "I want to play Spider-Man but suffer none of the flaws or consequences. It's just as Uncle Ben said, 'With great power comes great...' You know what? Screw that, and give me back that symbiote suit. I was ways more powerful that way. It's a clear upgrade on the stats, and I don't have to reload my webs. Score."

Click to expand...

No that's not what I am saying at all, what I am saying is that in some systems the players are encouraged to roleplay out their flaws but it's not a mechanism to create story and thus isn't enforced. IMO this allows players in those games more power over how, when and why their flaws are expressed vs. in FATE where a vital meta-currency is tied to it and it is used as a mechanism to generate the ebb and flow of story. I'm not placing a value judgement on either as it's clearly boils down to what you are trying to get from your gaming experience.

Aldarc said:

Thank you and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] for your own readings. That helps.

Though I understand your intent, at least presumably, I do take some issue with the bold, namely that it somewhat contradicts the rest of your statements. System and mechanics will inherently place limitations on how a player can play such that the idea that one system permits players to play their character "however they want" while the other doesn't seems iffy.

But nice tie-ins with overarching topic.

Click to expand...

Sure, "however they want" is an overly broad statement. What I meant was perhaps better described as "in a way more to their liking then what is typically provided within the source material". So they are free to play Spider-Man as being less a "hard luck" hero, or whatever other change from the source that they may like, while still being bound by the game system in place.

I hope that's clearer, and more in line with what you thought I may have meant.

Aldarc said:

System and mechanics will inherently place limitations on how a player can play such that the idea that one system permits players to play their character "however they want" while the other doesn't seems iffy.

Click to expand...

Some are much more permissive than others, certainly. FATE, for instance, and many other systems & sub-systems - even personal characteristics in 5e - put incentives on playing a character in other than optimal ways for the sake of portrayal/story. Other systems, like 3.5/PF, notoriously, provide myriad option but only some of them represent the optimal, or even a viable, path for the character.

So like the old example of killing baby kobolds because 'they're not worth XP alive,' that's a system artifact being cited for a counter-genre action, but the action, itself, ruthless as it may be, is not entirely unlike playing the Batman clone who finally just kills his Joker analogue.

There's a lot of "why don't they just..." moments you can revisit in an RPG, and sure, you can explore a cogent answer, but you can also legitimately enjoy doin' it right, for a change...

Maxperson said:

, It Came From the Late Late Late Show. . My favorite part of the game, though, was that you got extra points for being "appropriately stupid." In a slasher story: "I heard something outside of the house! You guys wait here, I'll go check it out!"

Click to expand...

Yep, I vaguely recall that one. The idea behind mechanics like that seems to be that the only thing keeping players who really want to be genre-appropriately-stupid from doing things like that is the rules 'punishing' them for it, so give a reward for it, and they'll happily RP the stupid.
Which is fun & goid genre emulation, sure. My point was that the urge to not be stupid might not just be from wanting to master/win the game, mechanically, but from the impulse to chalkenge the genre-conformal stupidity, and play through the consequences.

Aldarc said:

Also, it kinda sounds - and here I do exaggerate - like you are depicting the other side as "I want to play Spider-Man but suffer none of the flaws or consequences. It's just as Uncle Ben said, 'With great power comes great...' You know what? Screw that, and give me back that symbiote suit. I was ways more powerful that way. It's a clear upgrade on the stats, and I don't have to reload my webs. Score."

Click to expand...

It's not always an exaggeration, based on a few players I've met over the years.

I don't think that the late/end game character is necessarily what my players have in mind here. Since we have been talking about Spider-Man, let's stick with that and superheroes for a second. If we were playing a supers game, they would likely have a basic power set in mind for playing Spider-Man. But the issue would be akin to leveling three levels as a mundane Peter Parker high school dork before getting your Spider-Man of "spider-sense" and maybe wall-crawling, but then having to wait another four levels before you unlock your web-slinging, and then another set of levels before you get your super physique. Sure, superheroes power-up/level, but most heroes start out with their set of powers realized. And most people wanting to a Spider-Man-esque character - maybe an off-brand character called the "The Bug" - would want to jump into that character concept right away rather than slog through months of play before they can play the character concept they had in mind. For some of my players in D&D 5E, they may have to wait until level 3 or later - depending on archetype features or sufficient multiclassing - before they get what they consider the core of their character concept realized. The "process of getting there" can come across as a begrudging tax rather than an exciting feature, and I don't think that this makes them bad players for wanting to play what they actually have in mind for their character as soon as possible and being disappointed with that "process." In contrast, there are other games where players can jump right in at "level 0" with their realized character concepts and basic suite of features for that concept.

Click to expand...

Thing is, a supers game (i.e. a milieu where Spiderman would make sense) kind of expects you to have your superpowers - or most of them - right out of the gate. Which is fine, as long as it's made clear that "mechanical" development and growth of the character over the campaign is likely to be near zero. To me it'd be like starting a D&D game with 20th level characters, where the game system caps at 21st.

The only other real option is - and here Spidey is a good example - to start as Peter Parker and play out the origin story. In this case there will certainly be "mechanical" growth to the character but it'll all kind of happen in one great big whack - you either have superpowers or you don't. But it'd be tricky trying to play out the origin stories of a bunch of supers all together in one party, I guess. In D&D terms you'd go from 1st level to 15th level in one fell swoop, skipping all the ones in between.

Maybe this is part of why supers games have never interested me in the slightest. That, and superheroes just don't realistically fit into the world no matter how hard you try; I find this jarring in the Marvel movies sometimes as well.

A low or even mid-level D&D character, however - particularly a non-caster - *can* realistically fit in to its ordinary game world just fine; even more so in a system like 1e or 5e where the by-level power curve isn't as steep. You can play an ordinary Joe who just happens to be really good at what he does (fighting, sneaking, tracking, persuading, whatevs) and take it from there, watching him develop both mechanically* and as a character. And you also get to play through all the intervening steps rather than jump straight from 'nobody' to 'superhero'.

* - and even this isn't important beyond the very basics e.g. added hit points and baked-in class abilities.

So back to character concept: on the uncommon occasions where I put any thought into a character before rolling it up, I might have an end ideal for what that character could become at high level but I'm fully aware that a) in-game events can and likely will change that ideal significantly; b) the chances of the character surviving** long enough to reach that ideal state are low to zero; and c) what seems workable in my mind might not be at all workable once play begins.

** - including both in-game survival (the usual character death bit) and meta-survival (does playing this character cross my boredom threshold).

Lanefan