What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

No, this is a "Level 7 Complexity 5" skill challenge. This is not a "Level 7 Complexity 5" with a note that a failed Endurance check to cross The Barrens, a PC loses a healing surge. You can make anything work with enough kludges like that, but at the same time, you're making it more complex and less predictable.

I'm not sure what your point is. You said that a creature stat block introduces fiction. And I replied that the same is true of a skill challenge "stat block", which includes (eg) notes on difficulties of various actions that might be attempted, consequences for failure (like the one I mentioned), etc.

And I'm not sure why you describe notes on consequences as a "kludge" - this is a core part of the system (see 4e DMG p 76, and further elaboration in the DMG2).

 

[pemerton]

The player doesn't author the orc's death, and neither do the dice. Only the DM has the power to say what actually happens within the narrative.

Players never author fiction. The DM is the only one capable of authoring fiction.

This is not a general truth about RPGing. It is true in those games in which player action declarations count only as suggestions to the GM to change the fiction a certain way. But that is just a subset of RPG play.

As far as the players are concerned, playing in a world where the backstory is authored by the DM is identical to playing in a world where the backstory is generated through internal causal processes, in every way that matters. In both cases, the agency of the player is limited to what the character can actually accomplish through their own means, and they don't have to worry about accidentally authoring backstory as a result of actions they take in the present.

This likewise is not a general truth, because your conception of what ways matter is not universally held.

If I am actually trying to solve a mystery in the real world, and can't find any footprints, that's a fact about the world that I have to deal with.

If I am playing a RPG, and the GM tells me I can't find any footprints, that's a fact about the exercise of authority over the fiction in a game which has, as an important component of play, the generation of a shared fiction. As a player I don't have to just deal with that - I can find a better game! And as a GM, I'm not obliged just to deal with this either - I can run my game in a fashion that I prefer (which, in fact, is what I do).

Or to put it another way: the allocation of authority to establish the fiction is not some brute matter of fact. It's a matter of game design, and it's up for grabs. It doesn't have to be one way or another.

 

[pemerton]

I want my players to feel like the world is a real place and they are their characters in that place. It’s why verisimilitude is so important to us. Far more than most groups.

It depends what you mean by "is a real place" - some of my games are rather gonzo (eg Marvel Heroic; epic-tier 4e) and so in that sense could never be mistaken for documentaries.

But if you are talking about "immersion" or a sense of "inhabitation" then that it is a very high priority for me, and I think for most of my players. But the method of action resolution is rather orthogonal to that. If the player declares "I search the study for the map", that does not involve any loss of inhabitation of the character. If the roll is then made, that is no different from any other rolling of the dice that the player does in the course of play. And if it comes up successful and the GM affirms "Yes, you find the map" - well, that doesn't involve any departure from immersion, realism or verisimilitude either.

 

[Lanefan]

No. That is pure meaningless gibberish. There is no 'inside' or 'outside'.

Do you never differentiate between in-character and out-of-character during play? It's the same thing...

Or is everything in your game done from a third-person stance, completely 'gamist' and without character immersion?

There's a giant yellow teapot full of dragons in my garden. Your options are to add to the story or not. That's it. Add to story, in the real world. Or don't. End of options.

Says you, ignoring options other than just add or do nothing:

Change the story without adding: there's a giant red teapot full of kittens in your garden (player agency at work right there!)
Ask questions for clarification about the story: the teapot's yellow, but what colour are the dragons; and how long has this all been there? (in other words, got you to add to the story rather than me)

The words I write exist, but the things I write about don't. The dragons live in a snail. Now a shoe. Now they have turned into trampolining swans. They seem to lack causal power, those dragons. No fight at all. Look, I just turned them into an obsidian flute.

No matter what system she's using, if a DM presented the elements of her game world to her players with that level of consistency and continuity she'd be rightfully sacked in the first session.

If a game world is to be believable and playable there has to be some internal consistency and continuity or else the players can't possibly be expected to interact with it on any meaningful level at all. And consistency and continuity both bring about and come from causality, where one thing reasonably leads to the next.

Does this fiction exist? Yes. Do the teapot or dragon or shoes or flute or trampolining swans exist? No.

In the real world, this is true.

But in a game setting there's another layer to it all; a layer which you choose to wilfully (and wrongly, I think) deny the existence of: the reality within the fiction.

Does the fiction about the teapot etc. exist in real life? Yes.
Do the teapot etc. exist in real life? No.
Do the teapot etc. exist within the fiction that has been created about them? Yes.

Now while the above is an admittedly pointless distinction in regards to the fictional teapot - in the fiction as presented it just passively sits there and holds whatever's in it - it's a very important distinction in regards to player characters in a game world, as the whole basis of the game assumes that not only do the PCs exist within the game world (i.e. the fiction) but that furthermore they can and will react independently* to elements presented within that fiction.

* - independently as directed by their players, who in the real world are also reacting via their words to elements of the fiction as presented by the words of the DM.

If you all want to pretend your games aren't authored by people playing the game, or that books aren't written by authors, go right ahead.

I've no argument with the idea that fictional things are authored by real people.

I do have something against it as a mode of rpg-analysis, though.

Well, when that authorship comes about via the authors immersing themselves into the imaginary world and acting or reacting as their avatars (PCs) would logically do, doesn't it only make sense to analyse it from that angle? To see how, within the imaginary world, one thing can lead to another?

I'm not looking to analyze why Joe always rolls his dice from left to right and tries to hit the chip bowl for luck; nor am I looking to analyze why Steve always follows along with Mary's suggestions while most of the time ignoring John's and rarely making any of his own. That's not the point here.

I'm looking in this thread to analyze and explain what worldbuilding is for. Worldbuilding, as in the building of imaginary worlds that don't exist in real life but still need to be made internally consistent within themselves in order to be playable and at least a tiny bit more realistic than a bad LSD trip. And that consistency comes about via internal causality - one thing leads to the next - both in the worldbuilding phase and the actual run of play.

Real world: Cause: I declare my character casting a fireball. Effect: I roll some damage dice (along with maybe an aiming roll depending on system), add 'em up, and the DM does some arithmetic to her monsters' remaining h.p. totals. (I-the-player don't hear the goblins screaming)

Game world: Cause: Amelia Xana casts a spell using the requisite components, motions and utterances that she has been taught to use. Effect: a small bead shoots from her hand and explodes among some goblins, killing most and leaving the few screaming survivors in a world o' hurt. (Amelia doesn't hear the rolling dice)

I type real words. Things that don't exist do non-existent stuff.

There's no inside and outside. That's the way you and Lanefan choose to lie to yourselves. Which is a fine, popular and long-standing form of play. But a garbage form of rpg theory.

Call it garbage if you like but your calling of it doesn't make it so.

And, to play the same type of game, in fact here you're not typing real words at all; and neither am I.

Oh sure, our fingers are hitting keys but nothing real comes of it; just something ephemeral on a screen, put there by interacting electrons. I can only assume the words you see on your screen after I post this will be the same as I see on mine - we have to share that mutual trust and belief. The same is true in a shared imaginary world: we have to share a mutual trust and belief that the elements of the game world are what we think they are, as presented by the DM.

The words would only become truly real - as in physically existing - were we to send each other letters on paper.

Lan-"even a print-screen won't make the words real without the mutual trust and belief that the electrons have put your actual words on the screen"-efan

 

[pemerton]

My PC exists within the fiction of the game just like Sherlock Holmes exists within the fiction as presented by Sir ACDoyle. The key difference between my PC and Holmes, however, is that within the fiction I can direct what my PC does and how it interacts with the rest of the fiction as presented.

This is just confused.

There is no difference between your PC and Holmes. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle authors stuff about Holmes. You and your friend author stuff about your PC. You, the human being Lanefan, do not do anything "within the fiction" - you write the fiction. Or perhaps your GM does.

No. That is pure meaningless gibberish. There is no 'inside' or 'outside'.

There's a giant yellow teapot full of dragons in my garden. Your options are to add to the story or not. That's it. Add to story, in the real world. Or don't. End of options.

The words I write exist, but the things I write about don't. The dragons live in a snail. Now a shoe. Now they have turned into trampolining swans. They seem to lack causal power, those dragons. No fight at all. Look, I just turned them into an obsidian flute.

Causal power of chaochou: total Causal power of fictional things: none

Does this fiction exist? Yes. Do the teapot or dragon or shoes or flute or trampolining swans exist? No.

Fiction existing: check. Content of fiction not existing: check.

Case closed.

Right. Fictions don't write themselves. They are authored. This is true whether the fiction is a Mickey Mouse, Santa Claus, The Hound of the Baskervilles, or the content of an RPG session.

In the context of RPG play and design, the important question is who gets to add to the fiction and subject to what parameters. Eg most RPGs (Toon is one obvious exception; the use of wish spells in D&D is another) don't permit the dragon turned into a trampolining swan as an addition to the fiction. This is a more extreme example of hoping to find beam weapons in the Duke's toilet.

Typically, these parameters are established both informally (genre expectations; table understandings) and via the detailed rules (eg maybe when a character disarms someone, a die is rolled to see how many feet away the opponent's sword lands - if that die is a d10, then the game simply doesn't permit adding to the fiction I disarm the orc and send its sword flying 15' away). The more the game relies on "free descriptors" for action resolution, the more the informal methods come to the fore - eg in my 4e game, there is no rule that tells us whether or not the epic-tier sorcerer can make an Arcana check to seal the Abyss (whereas there is a rule - the description of the Arcana skill - that tells us that, if your action declaration is "I seal the Abyss with my magic" then Arcana is the skill that is relevant). That the answer, at our table, was "yes" followed from a set of shared understandings built up over the years of play of the game. One side effect of a multi-year, start-at-Heroic-and-gradually-move-to-Epic style of play is that, as the scope and gonzo-ness of feasible action declarations grows over time, so does the group's shared understanding of what does or doesn't fit as an action declaration. I would expect that just turning up and running epic-tier 4e for a group of strangers as a one-shot would be much more challenging in this respect, as the scope of permissible action declarations would be quite unclear.

But anyway, all this is actual social processes taking place in the actual, real world. The fiction itself doesn't - and, obviously, can't - generate any answers as to how additional bits of it are to be authored, by whom, and what they might contain. I think that it obviously conduces to the social character of the game for the informal parameters on authorship to be established collectively (both organically as I've described for 4e, and occasionally via deliberate discussion and decision among the group); and as I've already said again and again in this thread, there's no reason at all from the point of view of technical design why rule-generated constraints have to take only the GM's ideas for the fiction as inputs.

EDIT: More confusion:

Do the teapot etc. exist within the fiction that has been created about them? Yes.

Now while the above is an admittedly pointless distinction in regards to the fictional teapot - in the fiction as presented it just passively sits there and holds whatever's in it - it's a very important distinction in regards to player characters in a game world, as the whole basis of the game assumes that not only do the PCs exist within the game world (i.e. the fiction) but that furthermore they can and will react independently* to elements presented within that fiction.

It is a premise of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories about Sherlock Holmes that Holmes not only exists within the imagined London of those stories, but that he can and will react independently to other elements of that fiction: eg when Watson says "Hello" Holmes may reply, or may moodily ignore him, or may suddenly launch into a tirade of some sort, or . . .

You seem to want to say that the player's responsibility in relation to his/her PC - which is a real-world fact about the way RPGs are played - somehow manifests itself in the fiction. This is bizarre in and of itself; and it also seems to contradict your reasonably frequent assertion that PCs and NPCs are indistinguishable in the fiction.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This is not a general truth about RPGing. It is true in those games in which player action declarations count only as suggestions to the GM to change the fiction a certain way. But that is just a subset of RPG play.

It is true of D&D, which was the specific game under discussion, and of every game which plays similarly. Whether you want to include other games under the blanket category of RPG is irrelevant.

This likewise is not a general truth, because your conception of what ways matter is not universally held.

If you hate the concept of role-playing - which should be obvious to everyone by now - then it makes sense that rules designed to facilitate role-playing (such as the whole concept of worldbuilding) would seem pointless to you. That's not a problem with the game rules, or the concept of worldbuilding. That's a problem with you trying to play games that aren't designed for you. There are plenty of games where worldbuilding isn't a thing, because players aren't expected to role-play.

If I am actually trying to solve a mystery in the real world, and can't find any footprints, that's a fact about the world that I have to deal with.

If the DM says that there aren't footprints there, then it's a fact about the game world that you have to deal with. That the DM decided this unilaterally does not make it any less true.

If I am playing a RPG, and the GM tells me I can't find any footprints, that's a fact about the exercise of authority over the fiction in a game which has, as an important component of play, the generation of a shared fiction. As a player I don't have to just deal with that - I can find a better game! And as a GM, I'm not obliged just to deal with this either - I can run my game in a fashion that I prefer (which, in fact, is what I do).

If the generation of shared fiction is an important goal for you, then you should find a different hobby. Role-playing games (at least, of the type where DMs author the backstory unilaterally) aren't about collaborative story-telling. You should stop deluding yourself into thinking that they are.

Or to put it another way: the allocation of authority to establish the fiction is not some brute matter of fact. It's a matter of game design, and it's up for grabs. It doesn't have to be one way or another.

Game design should support the goals of the game. If the goal of the game is to role-play, then authorial control should not go to the players or their characters. If the goal of the game is collaborative story-telling, then there might be some merit to sharing narrative control.

 

[Imaro]

I don't understand your question. In particular, I'm not sure what you're envisaging can't be done.

I'll try again to explain how I see it, and perhaps that will answer your question.

Scenario 1
The established fiction - let's say - is that the PCs are hoping to find a map; that the map is lost/missing/somewhere unknown; and that one particular PC has just found him-/herself in a study.

Then - let's suppose - the player of that PC, using his/her power to make moves in the game, declares "I search the study for that map we're looking for." The shared fiction now includes the PC searching the study.

The question is: can, and if so does, the shared fiction change to include the PC finding the map in the study?

Scenario 2
The established fiction - let's say - is that the PCs are engaged in a raid of some orcs' stronghold (like, say, B2); that the orcs are very ready to fight back; and that one particular PC, armed with a sword, has just found him-/herself in a room with an orc.

Then - let's suppose - the player of that PC, using his/he power to make moves in the game, declares "I draw my sword and attack the orc!" The shared fiction now includes the PC drawing his/her sword and engaging the orc in combat.

The question is: can, and if so does, the shared fiction change to include the PC killing the orc?

My contention
The shared fiction changes by acts of authorship. In the RPGing scenarios I've described, there are two candidates to do that authoring: the player and the GM.

It is very widely accepted among RPGers that, in scenario 2, the dice are used to mediate the authorship. Rougly speaking, if the dice come up in the player's favour, the player's desire as to the content of the shared fiction is realised: it includes the PC killing the orc. If the dice come up otherwise, then the player's desire is not realised: the shared fiction will include a still-livng orc, and possibly other consequences as well (such as a wounded or dead PC).

There is no technical or metaphysical reason why scenario 1 has to be any different in the way the action declaration is resolved and hence the new ficiton is authored. That is, the dice can be used to mediate the authorship: if they come up in the player's favour, the content of the shared fiction includes the PC finding the map in the study; if not, then the shared fiction does not include discovery of a map, and possibly includes other consequences as well.

If scenario 1 nevertheless is handled differently - eg the state of the shared fiction following the action declaration is determined by the GM reading from his/her notes - then the player does not have agency over that aspect of the shared fiction. Agency in respect of that aspect of the shared fiction has been reserved to the GM alone.

Trying to explain that reservation of agency in metaphysical terms - the map is in <the kitchen, the cave, wherever> and not in the study, and so of course the PC can't find it in the study - is just reiterating that agency has been reserved to the GM. Because the map being in the kitchen (or wherever) is itself just an authored piece of fiction. It's not an independent, objective reality in the way that the actual location of some actual map in the real world would be.

Hmmm... I guess my question would be if scenario 2 has instead of an orc...a monster the PC can't beat, no matter how well the dice roll in his favor (Let's say an ancient red dragon and a 1st level PC who can't hit it's armor class). Is that example then comparable to the map that can't be found in the study?

In the example I'm presenting... the only thing that stops the PC from defeating the dragon is pre-written stats, correct? Do these take away player agency in the same way a GM with secret backstory does (is this determined by whether the player has knowledge of the creatures stats or not?)? Or are you saying in the type of game you play the PC's could never run into something that they couldn't overcome... that there is in fact never a situation where they can't beat or do something with a high enough roll?

 

[Lanefan]

This is just confused.

There is no difference between your PC and Holmes. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle authors stuff about Holmes. You and your friend author stuff about your PC. You, the human being Lanefan, do not do anything "within the fiction" - you write the fiction. Or perhaps your GM does.

The difference is this: as a consumer of Sir ACD's fiction I have no control at all over what Sherlock Holmes does next or how he reacts to a given situation; but as a consumer of the fiction presented in the game I do have control over what my PC does next or how she reacts to a given situation.

It is a premise of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories about Sherlock Holmes that Holmes not only exists within the imagined London of those stories, but that he can and will react independently to other elements of that fiction: eg when Watson says "Hello" Holmes may reply, or may moodily ignore him, or may suddenly launch into a tirade of some sort, or . . .

Yes, as directed by Sir ACD and narrated within the book.

You seem to want to say that the player's responsibility in relation to his/her PC - which is a real-world fact about the way RPGs are played - somehow manifests itself in the fiction.

Yes. Were this to happen in an RPG rather than a novel then NPC Watson says "Hello" (as directed and narrated by the DM, his player) and I-as-Holmes might reply, or moodily ignore him, or launch into a tirade, whatever...as directed and narrated by me as his player.

That's one of the big differences between playing an RPG and reading a novel - an RPG has multiple people including the end consumer controlling the characters and to some extent the story being told, while a novel (usually) only has one person controlling who is almost certainly not the end consumer.

But take careful note: while the end consumers (the players) have some control over the story they do not have much if any control over the setting or backdrop against which that story takes place (and in the case of a real-world-based RPG, neither does the DM). So if Holmes and Watson are having a conversation while on a train from London to Oxford neither a player nor the DM can reasonably narrate either of them looking out the train's window and seeing the Portsmouth docks go by.

In a more traditional RPG situation, the players have control over the story that gets played through based on the in-game choices they make via their PCs but they don't have control over the land they're in having a culture and climate vaguely resembling that of ancient Greece.

This is bizarre in and of itself; and it also seems to contradict your reasonably frequent assertion that PCs and NPCs are indistinguishable in the fiction.

No it doesn't, as the DM is doing the same thing for the NPCs. Watson's character as narrated should in theory come across as the same to a hypothetical observer and be bound by the same game mechanics, rules and processes whether he's a DM-run NPC or a player's PC.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

If the DM says that there aren't footprints there, then it's a fact about the game world that you have to deal with.

The problem we're up against, however, is that for some of these guys game worlds and other imaginary constructs don't have facts. Only reality has facts.

Which makes any attempt at analysing how those game-world facts are generated - which is the whole question behind this thread! - a rather hopeless exercise.

Lan-"if I beat my real head against an imaginary brick wall, does it hurt any less than this desk?"-efan

 

[pemerton]

If the generation of shared fiction is an important goal for you, then you should find a different hobby. Role-playing games (at least, of the type where DMs author the backstory unilaterally) aren't about collaborative story-telling.

It seems odd that you feel the need to state the second sentence to me. Throughout the thread I've been posting, again and again, that RPGs in the mainstream form are not about collaborative storytelling.

But as it turns out, there are ways to have multiple authors generate a shared fiction without engaging in collaborative storytelling. Gary Gygax stumbled onto some of them. The "standard narrativistic model" sets out a different set of them.