What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Lanefan]

Yeah, OTOH the whole rest of the structure of D&D works AGAINST it. You don't get to choose what sort of a character to play, some dice are rolled and you get what you get, at least to some extent. Its likely that Jim will roll and 8 STR and a 13 INT, so he'll end up being a wizard, and Mary will get stuck playing a cleric.

Depending on what roll-up method is used, all of these are possible. That said, whatever character you end up with, that's what you inhabit (which is in fact a part of the player-side challenge of hard-coded 0e and 1e, somewhat lost since).

Then of course, even if you get exactly what you want, Falstaff is pretty likely to be ganked by the first batch of 4 goblins you run across. Maybe after that Jim decides to call his next character 'Falstaff Jr', and so on.

Again true, and again perfectly acceptable as a part of the game (except for the Falstaff Jr. bit). Characters die. It's a realistic result when they stick their noses into dangerous places where others fear to tread.

Furthermore the game definitely mires you in a lot of details and trivia that revolve around sub-games, the 'getting your numbers up by acquiring magic stuff' subgame, the equipment and supplies subgame (do we still have some more oil flasks?).

Yes, the 'logistics' side - something else that has rather sadly been lost over the years.

There's also the whole issue of some types of characters simply being only marginally useful in play, particularly if you manage to survive and get to higher levels. Falstaff is cool and all, and has a castle, but he is hardly even a vital part of a party anymore when Filmar and her ilk can hire some lower level guys to hold the front line and blast the bad guys with powerful spells.

Depends on level. In 35 years of playing 1e variants I've never seen a party average above about 10th level; and at 10th-ish the non-casters can still more than hold their own.

Once you get to 18th and the MU has Wish available in the field then yeah - it's over.

I'm not denigrating 1e, but it really doesn't live up to that blurb. Its a different kind of a game, still fundamentally a Gygaxian dungeon crawl in mechanical and play-structural terms. I guess what I'm saying is, there's not really much incentive to heavily identify with the character you prefer to play and spend a lot of your time in 1st person play. TBH I have only really ever seen fairly sporadic 1st person in D&D, and I've played a LOT of D&D...

Drop in any Saturday night to the game I play in.

And yes, there's not much incentive to do much with your character until it's survived a few adventures...which is why I generally don't; and have no problem with not doing so. I bang out the numbers, give it a basic personality (sometimes more over-the-top than others) and see how it goes from there. Background etc. can wait till later.

Only if the focus and structure of play are basically Gygaxian in nature. If the expectations are different then it makes perfectly good sense to have a game which is 100% transparent (I've done this numerous times). It can work in a lot of different ways. Nor are 'dangerous and unpleasant situations' removed from consideration. They just aren't situations where PLAYER SKILL is the determinant. They might be, for example, situations where the player's aesthetic and dramatic sensibilities are fulfilled by a certain PC falling to his death, or something.

You're very very VERY trusting of your players to not more or less subtly bend this transparency and play-style to their advantage. If you have such trustworthy players, good on ya; but they're a very rare breed.

That, and I see it as a bit more adversarial; in that the game world (as reasonably run by the DM) is out to make the PCs miserable in one way or another and the PCs are out to survive and mitigate and win through said misery.

Heh, I played in a campaign for YEARS with a GM of extremely great energy, creativity, and story-telling power. However that game was EXACTLY described by "players can't affect the gamestate through the actions of their PCs." Truthfully you could TAKE many actions in that game. They would generally have some localized and modest effect, though often not what you were interested in or wanted. In any greater sense, the story was writ, and you were there to experience it. No choice you would make was going to deflect that greater story even one iota. If an NPC was to play a certain role in the meta-plot, then that WAS going to happen. No amount of killin' 'em dead was going to stop it.

Yeah, that's overdoing it on the part of that particular DM.

Sounds like he wasn't one for hitting player-thrown curveballs. Pity.

I cannot claim this wasn't a highly fun campaign, it was, but you had to be willing to just come to an understanding that you were pretty much watching the show and contributing color. Now, this guy and I were best friends and we talked through a lot of stuff outside of play and came up with ideas, etc. Sometimes things came out the way I thought they should/might/could. It was just, once his mind was made up it was going in a certain way, there wasn't much that was going to change it.

Depending on the story being told, I'd findsomething like this to be either a great game or a crashing bore.

But - I'm a chaotic player; and it's pretty much guaranteed that at some point I'd have suggested the party abandon the whole thing and just go bash ogres in the hills. Wonder how he'd have handled that?

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

It's a real DM doing real work to generate an imaginary world which the imaginary PCs can later explore and-or bash around in.

The PCs explore the world, just like Sherlock Holmes walked the streets of London.

Ie these things happen in imagination.

The question about agency is what input (if any) the players - who are real people, ostensibly playing a game - have into the shared fiction: do they get to establish any of it, or are they primarily having the GM tell them bits of it?

I've never seen or heard of any table where the players can't affect the gamestate through the actions of their PCs. The PCs burn down a barn? They've just changed the gamestate through their playing of their PCs.

[MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s point is that the players can't bring it about that their PCs perform actions, because it is the GM who mediates everything through his/her decision-making.

This is a strong version of the idea that player action declarations are simply suggestions to the GM as to how the fiction might be changed.

 

[pemerton]

GM Force is not always a bad thing: the determinant of whether it's good bad or neutral lies in how it's applied and - sometimes - in hindsight when looking at what came of it in play.

Bracket the question whether GM Force is good or bad. Just think about what this means.

GM Force = GM establishes the content of the shared fiction without regard to the game mechanics (including without regard to the mechanical resolution of player action declarations).

Thus, GM Force = game play, at that moment, consists simply in the GM telling the players some fiction that s/he wrote (either in advance, or on the spur of the moment).

Upthread I was told this was a pejorative description of GM-worldbuilding-oriented play. But here you are saying exactly what I talked about can be a good thing if everyone likes the fiction that the GM established. I wasn't being pejorative - I was being accurate!

 

[Manbearcat]

Bracket the question whether GM Force is good or bad. Just think about what this means.

GM Force = GM establishes the content of the shared fiction without regard to the game mechanics (including without regard to the mechanical resolution of player action declarations).

Thus, GM Force = game play, at that moment, consists simply in the GM telling the players some fiction that s/he wrote (either in advance, or on the spur of the moment).

Upthread I was told this was a pejorative description of GM-worldbuilding-oriented play. But here you are saying exactly what I talked about can be a good thing if everyone likes the fiction that the GM established. I wasn't being pejorative - I was being accurate!

Yup.

And upthread I was told I was being extreme and unfair when I wrote out 7 points that I felt were not particularly contentious and widely held among the majority of users of this thread and ENWorld at large (and 2 others that were likely more contentious and not as widely held as the prior 7); world-building as art and fun unto itself, GM's table and if you don't like their game then you can certainly find another.

And we've seen it written more adamantly, more transparently, and more aggressively by others in this thread (GM IS GOD)...yet, for some reason, they aren't highlighting those advocates and calling them out as using pejoratives!

I think the lesson here is that you're able to describe, distill, clarify a discipline if you are a card-carrying member (and even use language that can only be described as extreme), but if you're not, then bad feelings and you're wrong.

 

[Sebastrd]

How is it pejorative to talk about it being a goal of play for the players to trigger the GM reading stuff from his/her notes, if that is in fact a signficant goal of play?

Let me break it down for you.

The entirety of an RPG revolves around generating a shared fiction. That fiction is established in three ways:

1. A player declares an action and/or rolls some dice, and the GM tells them some stuff they made up two days ago.
2. A player declares an action and/or rolls some dice, and the GM tells them some stuff they made up on the spot.
3. A player declares an action and/or rolls some dice, and the player tells the GM some stuff the player made up on the spot.

Personally, I don't see any functional difference between the three, while your contention seems to be that options 2 and 3 are acceptable, but option 1 is not. I wouldn't want to play in any game wherein only one of the above options was utilized - each of the three are best in different situations. Folks are interpreting your opinions as "pejorative", because you say things like "the GM reading stuff from his/her notes is a significant goal of play". As if we all sat down around the table for a GM to read us a story. You also continually use examples of bad GMing to make your point that option 1 is a bad thing. A good GM will not send his players on a wild goose chase through the mansion for a map macguffin. That would be akin to describing your style of play as the GM forces the players to go through every room of the mansion rolling perception checks until they hit a target DC to find a map no matter how long that takes or how little sense it makes that they finally found the map in the privy.

The games I run utilize all three of the above options to establish the shared fiction. Even the fiction that I've "pre-authored" can be impacted (or changed entirely if the situation calls for it) at any time by the players' actions - they are the heroes after all. "My" game world is simply the canvas on which they create our art. Constraint breeds creativity, and my "pre-authored" and on-the-spot decisions can serve as constraint for the players.

 

[darkbard]

A good GM will not send his players on a wild goose chase through the mansion for a map macguffin.

How can you believe this to be so when this is exactly the sort of GMing that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] advocates throughout this thread: that the players must guess the location of the map as he, as GM, has preauthored it, and that if that slows the progress of the game to a halt while the PCs run through a sequence of rooms making checks until they succeed at a check in the correct room, well, then, them's the breaks?!?

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, OTOH the whole rest of the structure of D&D works AGAINST it. You don't get to choose what sort of a character to play, some dice are rolled and you get what you get, at least to some extent. Its likely that Jim will roll and 8 STR and a 13 INT, so he'll end up being a wizard, and Mary will get stuck playing a cleric.

This just isn't true. Many are the times where I played a 14 strength, 16 int fighter for example, because I wanted to play a fighter and not a wizard at that moment. The game didn't stick you with a class, you did by self-limiting based on your highest stat. Further, you weren't stuck what you get. The game very strongly implies that the DM should allow players who roll low to re-roll by letting DMs know that it is usually essential to have a 15+ in no fewer than 2 abilities.

Then of course, even if you get exactly what you want, Falstaff is pretty likely to be ganked by the first batch of 4 goblins you run across. Maybe after that Jim decides to call his next character 'Falstaff Jr', and so on.

No. Blaming crappy naming and roleplaying on the danger of the game is weak sauce. Some people did that, but the vast majority did not and the game didn't tell them to do so.

Furthermore the game definitely mires you in a lot of details and trivia that revolve around sub-games, the 'getting your numbers up by acquiring magic stuff' subgame, the equipment and supplies subgame (do we still have some more oil flasks?). There's also the whole issue of some types of characters simply being only marginally useful in play, particularly if you manage to survive and get to higher levels. Falstaff is cool and all, and has a castle, but he is hardly even a vital part of a party anymore when Filmar and her ilk can hire some lower level guys to hold the front line and blast the bad guys with powerful spells.

This has absolutely nothing to do with roleplaying. You can roleplay and seek to gain items and mechanical advantage. You can roleplay very well, even much better than the guy with the spells that is stronger than your character. Mechanics do not equal roleplay.

Your examples of the structure of D&D working against first person roleplay fall flat.

 

[Ovinomancer]

How can you believe this to be so when this is exactly the sort of GMing that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] advocates throughout this thread: that the players must guess the location of the map as he, as GM, has preauthored it, and that if that slows the progress of the game to a halt while the PCs run through a sequence of rooms making checks until they succeed at a check in the correct room, well, then, them's the breaks?!?

How can you believe this to be so when this is exactly the sort of GMing that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] advocates throughout this thread: that the players must guess the location of the map as he, as GM, has preauthored it, and that if that slows the progress of the game to a halt while the PCs run through a sequence of rooms making checks until they succeed at a check in the correct room, well, then, them's the breaks?!?

What does what [MENTION=21473]Sebastrd[/MENTION] says have to do with what [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] says? This requirement that a poster must either refute another poster or be held to what the other poster says is bizarre. What [MENTION=21473]Sebastrd[/MENTION] said already doesn't align to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s more absolutist positions, so why are you requiring an explicit refutation?

Should I now hold that you agree with everything in this tread you haven't explicitly rejected? No, if course not. Neither should you, or [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] for that matter, expect that a lack of explicit disagreement means agreement or deference.

 

[Emerikol]

It's interesting that I was having breakfast with a friend today and he described what he wanted in a roleplaying game and it pretty much matched my own view. Interesting in that it came up while I'm in this thread discussing this topic.

In my campaigns here is how it is set up...
1. The DM creates a sandbox world with a lot of detail at the center where the PCs will primarily be playing and then lesser amounts as you get farther away. So I may know the royal family of a neighboring country but I don't (yet!) know the butcher on 3rd street in the capital. Whereas in the town where the players start I pretty much know almost everyone.

2. I create a whole bunch of NPC's. I figure out which ones are the "movers & shakers" of my campaign world. From good guys to bad guys. I map out their plans and their agenda. Even where they are at at various times and places. If there is some nearby menace(s), I map those out with their agenda. I also make notes on race relations etc...

3. I create wandering monster tables for the wilderness. Some random and some drawn from a pool of local threats.

4. I create a bunch of adventures. These range from traditional dungeons to more event style adventures in town or in the wilderness. I generally just work this stuff up for about five levels of adventuring. Why? Because by then it might be time for another sandbox or perhaps an expansion of the current one or both. Some of these are just plot hooks because the prep is fairly light. One thing about a prepped dungeon though. If it never gets used it's always usable next time.


So what can the players do?
1. They can affect any person or place their character could affect. Just like we humans living in this world can affect our world. If someone in the above setting is killed by the group, that person is dead in the campaign world.

2. To me that is agency as I define it. Complete and total agency with the only limit, again a gentlemen's agreement, that we will at least for a while stay in the sandbox. Even then, if the group insisted I might ask for time to build the new area but I wouldn't out reject them if they were insistent.

3. Keep in mind too that I offer a particular style of game where I know what my kinds of players want. So I cater to those desires. If the DM's world is unimportant to you then I encourage you to seek another venue. Politely.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and those who enjoy his style of play
1. They feel they lack agency if they cannot shape the world as they play in it. It is not enough to control their own character's actions. They want to control the environment so that they can set up situations that they enjoy. I think I understand what you want. I think agency is the wrong word for it which might be the confusion.

2. The world is grown organically far more than it is crafted. This is great for them as they are continuously creating things they enjoy. Other than as someone who controls the monsters in a fight, the DM has far less involvement in the world than in my style of game. He is more a moderator of world building than the world builder.

3. I think what is widely regarded as worldbuilding really is of little use to Pemerton's playstyle. One of my favorite books which I still use is the Wilderness Survival Guide because it has really good weather tables. Such a concern I'm certain is not at all a Pemerton concern.


Which style is better?
1. The one you enjoy playing with your friends.

Which style is more traditional?
1. Well I believe my style is more in line with what has been said here as traditional. If D&D is the first serious RPG then yes.
2. I will though add that many modern games very much cater to Permerton's style (sorry I know it's not yours alone).
3. It makes total sense that the hobby has branched out into different styles. That is a sign of growth and not a bad thing at all.

What I hope we all can agree on
1. Play what you like and what is fun for you.
2. We all have good reasons for why we like what we like. We just emphasize different elements and thus have different priorities.


Back to my friend. He basically said that one major part of the game for him was exploring the world. Not creating it. But exploring it as the DM's creation. I have to say that is really a major thing I want out of any roleplaying game.

This is also why I don't like games with "metagame" controls. I disliked 4e, parts of 5e, dungeonworld, savage worlds, etc... Those games give players more control than the fictional character has and that goes against the style I prefer. I am sure for those who enjoy some hybrid version of mine and Permerton's, they might like such metagame rules. In Permerton's case they probably aren't enough.

 

[Manbearcat]

What does what [MENTION=21473]Sebastrd[/MENTION] says have to do with what [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] says? This requirement that a poster must either refute another poster or be held to what the other poster says is bizarre. What [MENTION=21473]Sebastrd[/MENTION] said already doesn't align to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s more absolutist positions, so why are you requiring an explicit refutation?

Should I now hold that you agree with everything in this tread you haven't explicitly rejected? No, if course not. Neither should you, or [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] for that matter, expect that a lack of explicit disagreement means agreement or deference.

Where I come in on this is as follows:

1) I write a (what should be) completely non-contentious 7 statements that basically just aggregate what 3-4 advocating posters have conveyed (in a few cases, word for word regurgitation or even throttling back the rhetoric; eg GM IS GOD/MY GAME to “its the GMs game/table).

Those aggregated statements are profoundly over-represented on ENWorld these days (the evidence for that is overwhelming) so I call it “collective” (do we really need to haggle over collective versus majority versus consensus?).

2) I write 2 more statements that I caveat as much more contentious and likely/possibly not majority held (They get disputed nearly as much as the get affirmed it seems).

3) I get called out for extremism, middle-excluding, over-generalizing...so basically my intellectual integrity challenged.

4) Meanwhile, the same user basically restates/accidentally affirms what I write in those 7 in subsequent answers (!)...fails to acknowledge what has been said by advocates in this thread (much more aggressively in this thread, before, during, and after that exchange)...while simultaneously obfuscating discussion and bogging it down with needless haggling over classification (back to 1).

Oh, and calls me out after I publicly (on purpose obviously) praise pemerton for not being a jerk even though a specific (different) user was being a terrific one to him while offering precisely 0 substance to the conversation (trolling)!

That is about the score of it as I can see it. I’m more than fine with minutae and nuance of opinion. I love it. Let’s analyze and break down GMing techniques/play priorities/rule paradigms all day long in deep nuance.

I’m not ok with the afformentioned exchange because it pollutes the technical breakdown signal, because I work very hard on my integrity, and because my time is limited (so I don’t want to have to waste time on non gaming stuff).