What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Lanefan]

I had a great long reply to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mostly typed in and then my computer decided to shut itself down...lost the lot...sigh.

So you'll have to pretend this post is a whole lot longer than it is, and that it says many more interesting and - I hope - intelligent things than this does.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] - I don't think I agree that all "let's pretend" is lying. I'd rather call out lying as one particular case of pretence.

When someone says "I'm Falstaff the Fighter" then either (i) that's false (because they're really Lanefan, or Gary Gyagx, or whomever) or else (ii) it's true (which doesn't seem right, because Falstaff doesn't exist, and so can't say anything about himself) or else (iii) something more complex is going on.

In the context of RPGing, I think I go with (iii). I'll try and explain.

A lie is straightforward assertion: so the (lying) assertion "I'm Falstaff the Fighter" is simply false, as per (i).

But assertion involves an attitude of defence or commitment. When a RPGer says "I'm Falstaff the Fighter" s/he doesn't have that attitude - s/he's not signalling any intention to defend the claim. It's much closer to stipulation: "For present purposes (ie the playing of the game), I am Falstaff the Fighter."

If the other players reject the stipulation, then there is no shared fiction (at least in respect of Falstaff) and so the game doesn't get off the ground.

If the other players accept the stipulation, then other things become assertable within the scope of the stipulation - eg "Because you're Falstaff the Fighter, you're probably stronger than puny Nerd Nimblefingers." And I think any truth predication is also best understood as occurring within the scope of the stipulation - so if someone says "It's true that I'm Falstaff the Fighter" they are not literally asserting the truth of that claim. They're saying that the claim "It's true that I'm Falstaff the Fighter" is permissible within the scope of a stipulation that I am Falstaff the Fighter.

(There are other reasons for pretending by stipulating besides entertainment - eg as I hinted at in a post upthread, this is how proof by reductio works.)

In light of the preceding, I would say that where [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s descriptions of play go wrong is that he says stuff in the scope of the stipulation, when his interlocutors (eg you, me) don't accept the stipulation. It's one thing to pretend to be Falstaff for the fun of RPGing - but why should I accept such a stipulation when I'm wanting to discuss techniques of RPGing? I don't want to learn what is assertable about RPGing within the scope of a stipulation that Lanefan is Falstaff; I want to learn what is assertable about RPGing simpliciter!

(For completeness - what I've suggested above isn't the only theory going around of how fictions and pretence work. It just happens to be the approach that I favour.)

 

[pemerton]

Sure, if you decide to search a study for a map, because you know that you will only find it where it already is since the world is not in a state of quantum flux whereby you may cause it to appear somewhere else as a direct result of searching for it, then that's role-playing.

Who do the second and third "you" refer to? Presumably the PC. Who does the fourth "you" refer to? Presumably the player. What about the first "you"? It's co-referring to both player and PC. Where does the player cause things to happen? Presumably in the real world? Where does the map appear (if anywhere)? In the fiction - it's a purely imaginary appearance.

In other words, your sentence is hopelessly confused with equivocations between fiction and the real world that obscure all helpful analysis.

Here's one tenable paraphrase, using <> to signify the content of the player's decision, and using underline to signify the negated content:

If a player decides that <his/her PC decides to search a study for a map, because his/her PC knows that s/he will only find it where it already is since the world is not in a state of quantum flux whereby the player may cause the map to appear somewhere else as a direct result of the PC searching for it>, then that's role-playing.​

I think this requirement for roleplaying is going to be satisfied in most cases, as no one will be playing a PC who knows, or even believes, that the player has any causal power over his/her fate. The only RPG I know of that actually plays with this sort of self-referential metagaming is Over the Edge.

It certainly doesn't violate your constraint that the content of the shared fiction concerning the location of the map is established in this way rather than that!


For fun, here's an alternative paraphrase that resolves the equivocations differently:

If a player decides that <his/her PC decides to search a study for a map>, because the player knows that his/her PC will only find the map where it is already imagined by the GM to be, since the shared fiction is not in a state of "quantum flux" whereby a player may cause details to be established as a direct result of declaring and resolving an action for his/her PC, then that's roleplaying.​

That's a strong constraint, but quiet implausible, as it doesn't turn on anything tenably connected to the playing of a role (eg the centrality of first person action declarations; the special salience of the fictional positioning of key protagonists; etc). It is simply a claim that RPGing requires GM authorship of the shared fiction.

This alternative paraphrase also makes clear how learning the content of the GM's notes is a key goal of play in RPGing with a high degree of GM pre-authored backstory; because the player is only making the action declaration for his/her PC because of his/her opinions about what the GM is imagining.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In other words, your sentence is hopelessly confused with equivocations between fiction and the real world that obscure all helpful analysis.

For the purposes of role-playing, the game world is real and the real world doesn't exist. The player should be approaching this from an in-character perspective, and making the backstory contingent upon the decisions of the player in the present (as adjudicated by dice mechanics) does not provide a firm basis for staying in character. Having the backstory be set in stone, before the player is presented with a decision, does allow that.

Look. Dude. Your question has been answered, truthfully, multiple times in the last day alone. Worldbuilding is useful for a playstyle that you don't use. You cannot possibly be so dense as to not understand that by now. This thread has served its purpose. You should thank everyone for contributing, and then move on with your life. Continuing to feign ignorance will be understood as trolling, because that's all it is.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

At most tables, Sir Bargle swings became an element of the fiction when the player made the action declaration, and so didn't depend on eg the roll of any dice. (I think [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] is an exception to this, but I'm also pretty confident that his is a minority view.)

The player cannot assume that at the time of his declaration. The resulting fiction could easily be something like the following: "Sir Bargles starts to raise his sword, maybe intending to strike when it turns to dust!" or "Whatever Sir Bargle's intention, it is cut short as he slumps senseless to the ground." or even "Sir Bargle cannot attack. He is still under the peace bond effect. What does he do instead?"

The player has indicated a direction. No part of the fiction can form until that direction is deemed appropriate for the table and appropriate to the positioning. "The table agreed on a no violence rule, remember?", "You can't because of X", "you need to make a saving throw to be able to attack". "This happens to stop/interrupt you", "Go ahead and roll dice", and "OK you attack and here's what happened..." are possible responses to the player's stated intention. Only some generate fiction. Others just reject the player's choice, either because the action isn't appropriate at the table or because the fiction doesn't support the stated direction -- either overtly (out of range, weapon was removed in a prior scene, the players know they are under a magical effect) or covertly (a secret was just revealed to the players). The fiction that results depends in part on the players desire, but only becomes formed when that direction is accepted and incorporated into play.

That is why the player is trying to do something in the fiction as opposed to authoring. His edits require approval before they are applied.

 

[Nagol]

I had a great long reply to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mostly typed in and then my computer decided to shut itself down...lost the lot...sigh.

So you'll have to pretend this post is a whole lot longer than it is, and that it says many more interesting and - I hope - intelligent things than this does.

I hear you! Last night I did a large multiline reply as well but those naughty gateways are back and I lost it too.

 

[Imaro]

I don't know how much work you are intending the words "beat" and "overcome" to do in your example.

I feel like we're edging into the realm of pedantry here... but ok, I'll play along let's say "overcome the challenge successfully". In the same way a successful roll allows the challenge of the map to be overcome by finding it in the study, success against the monster would allow it to be defeated in combat

My view is that an encounter in which the players don't have a range of meaningful options as to how they engage it and might resolve it is a poorly framed encounter. Whether or not your dragon encounter fits that description depends on many points of detail or context - eg maybe the players can run from the dragon, or befriend it, or pledge fealty to it, or hide from it.

This is avoiding the question. No one said they didn't have meaningful (whatever that means) options for resolution, but there is no roll that will bring about the realization of successfully beating this monster in combat in the same way that there is no roll that would successfully find the map in the study if the DM did not place it there. The PC's could research where the map is, cast a spell to find it, pay to have an augur or diviner search it's location out, talk to thieves who may be in the know about it's location and so on... and I consider those meaningful options, but feel free to explain why you may not. IMO it's the same way the PC's in that encounter could interact with the challenge of the monster in other ways but what they can't do (irregardless of how high they roll) is defeat it in combat because of it's pre-written stats...

In a recent session of my Traveller game the PCs found themselves under laser bombardment from an orbiting starship. The PCs were not in a position to attack the vessel - it was in orbit, and it's forward observer was in a small craft flying quite high above the ground. But they had a range of options, some of which they exercised: they fled in their ATVs to cover (we resolved these by application of the quickie combat rules for small craft); and they called in the local air force to deal with the attackers (from memory this was a simple case of "saying 'yes'" - one of the PCs was a recently retired senior military commander on the world in question). They NPCs tried to open negotiation with the PCs (over radio) but the players (as their PCs) refused to engage (so as best I recall this didn't actually get to the reaction roll/social mechanics stage).

And here I'm unclear how this is any different from the map not being in the study...

The ship cannot be attacked...plain and simple, due to what I assume was fictional positioning created by the DM. The map cannot be found plain and simple due to fictional positioning created by the DM. Both scenarios offer a plethora of alternate ways to deal with their respective challenge but I find it hard to discern why one is stopping or hindering player agency and the other is not...

 

[Maxperson]

Also, at the current level of description of these processes, there is nothing that makes "I try to hit him with my sword" any different from "I search the study for the map we've been looking for."

There are some differences in the processes.

1. If the object wasn't intentionally hidden, a flat DC is assigned which can go up to 30. AC doesn't go that high and is stat modified.

2. If the object was intentionally hidden, the DC is set with an opposed roll. That doesn't happen in combat.

3. Passive perception/investigation can be used to find the map. Passive attacks with a sword don't exist.

4. Perception/investigation use different stats than a sword does.

5. The goals are different. One process involves swinging a sword to defeat an opponent. The other involves searching a room to find an object.

 

[Maxperson]

Hence, as I have said, the player have only modest agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction; and hence, as I have also said, a significant goal of play is for the players to make moves that will trigger the GM to narrate bits of his/her notes.

I think a lot of the differences in opinions in this thread boil down to your different definition of agency.

The standard definition of player agency is the ability to fully control what your character does(outside of mechanics like mind control) and have the character's actions be able affect and change the game world. If my PC can walk into module B10 and try with the possibility of success to set himself up as Mayor of the town and the other PCs be his advisers, while ignoring the mysteries the module presents, I have full agency.

Your new definition is one where the players have to be equal to the DM in the ability to create the game world in order to have full agency. As long as you hold to your new definition, you are going to continue to have these disconnects with other participants in discussions of this sort.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is meaningless. There is no seperate existence 'in the fiction'. It is these words and nothing else.

The dragons are now a bacon sandwich. Now a children's swing.

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.

Well, clearly you didn't read the rest of my post where I address this. If you're actually interested in discussion rather than childish dismissals you can go back and do so, but I'm not going to waste my time reiterating it with you.

And, what form of rpg theory did I espouse? Being as I'm in full agreement that "I search the study for the map" and "I kill the orc" are functionally similar moves in some player-facing rpg theories, and have been open about stating that, I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to say. Protip: All I'm saying here is that an incoherent theory of fiction's non-existence to justify that those two moves are the same is incoherent. I'm not saying there isn't a coherent theory that allows it, in fact, I've espoused that theory: the fiction matters, and, if it matters, it exists. Not as a physical object, but to things that do not exist cannot matter by definition. Fiction may* not be real, but that wasn't the claim.

*This is an actual ongoing philosophical debate, so I can't claim one side has won over the other, hence the 'may'.