What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Maxperson]

I would go further than you have here (and I think you might come along with me).

I agree that your examples (the Yuan-ti and the gold), as presented, seem like fairly unexciting play. But I treat that just as a function of toy examples in a post to make a point.

I'll give a real example, from actual BW play:

A PC has (as two of three Beliefs) I will free my brother from possession by a balrog and I'm not leaving Hardby without gaining some magical item to use against my brother. The very first scene, that started the campaign, found this PC at a bazaar where a peddler was offering an angel feather for sale (ie a magical item that might be useful in dealing with a balrog-possessed mage).

This sees those two beliefs (one as instrumental to the other) engaged right away. And it doesn't make for poor play at all!

Now the retort might be that was GM framing. But I don't think that makes any difference.

My retort, and it really isn't a retort, but rather just a statement of preference, is that it seems too easy. For me, something that important to my PC should take some work to locate. That work adds extra meaning to my success when I finally find the item I need to free my brother from his possession. Is there a reason why instead of starting the scene where the feather was located, you didn't start the scene at a place where a guy knows a guy who knows a place where such things can be found?

 

[innerdude]

There's lots of subtexts running beneath this topic of player agency vis-a-vis narrative pacing.
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] 's question of, "Why not start your scene frame here instead of there?" is a good one, and as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] notes, it's really contextual. No one is going to allow a player to declare in the first 15 seconds of Session 1, "I take the One Ring to Orodruin and throw it into the fire." But not all groups are going to want to start out with, "You're all Level 0 halfling rogues in the Shire" either.

My wife has written several novels now (none published yet, sadly), and she and I talk constantly about story and narrative pacing, character arcs, plot arcs, etc. There's lots of "rules" around how to write effective fiction, but two of the most important are "Never let your protagonist earn a victory cheaply," and "Don't let your characters act out of character."

"Story Now" play, as I see it, is an attempt to directly address the second point. If players/characters aren't allowed to advocate for their narrative agenda in RPG play, they are in effect, "acting out of character."

At which point, the player is forced to subsume their actual character design and just "go along with it." This is essentially what I ended up doing with my PC for a year in the last Savage Worlds game in which I was a player. I had established clear narrative stakes for her through her character background and her choice of magical talents---she will valiantly fight against any and all forms of slavery.

Yet that dramatic need got addressed for maybe all of two sessions out of 27 or 28, and in mostly perfunctory, unsatisfying ways. And at one point I would have willingly traded out that character for one more suited for "GM scene tourist" play, but by that point she was kind of critical to party strategy. Her unorthodox set of magical talents complimented the rest of the group, and other players had already made character building choices based on some of her characteristics . . . so, she stayed on as a PC.

The other thing that keeps coming to mind is, neither side (GM and players) is immune to making mistakes from time to time. Sometimes players will wrongly advocate for a fictional state change that would, in fact, make the game worse. Sometimes the GM will wrongly impede players from advocating for their character agendas. Sometimes the GM offers too few concessions to the narrative, sometimes the players ask for too many.

GM experience plays a big role in making this work. It's very easy for me to see why an inexperienced GM would be adverse to a "Story Now"/player-front style---they haven't yet mastered techniques of pacing and scene framing, or possibly are unsure about how to appropriately re-frame player action declarations that cross the line of the Czege Principle.

As far as the problem of allowing the PCs to have their victories come too cheaply, this is not unique to "Story Now"/player-front play. Every edition of D&D from 3.x onward has had encounter difficulty guidelines to specifically address this. It doesn't matter if player victory comes too cheaply because the GM didn't set encounter difficulty high enough, or it comes too cheaply because the group consented to an inappropriate level of fictional authoring----the result is still unsatisfying.

 

[pemerton]

Is there a reason why instead of starting the scene where the feather was located, you didn't start the scene at a place where a guy knows a guy who knows a place where such things can be found?

Yes. Because starting in the bazarr (i) made it easier to bring 3 PCs into the situation, and (ii) it seemed more interesting.

My retort, and it really isn't a retort, but rather just a statement of preference, is that it seems too easy. For me, something that important to my PC should take some work to locate. That work adds extra meaning to my success when I finally find the item I need to free my brother from his possession.

Two thoughts in response.

(1) The angel feather, as it turned out, was not the item needed. It turned out to be cursed (in the play of the game, this was the consequence that followed upon a failed Aura-reading check) and got the PCs into a reasonable amount of trouble.

(2) The notion of "some work" needs interrogation here. In the real world, work si work: time, effort, perhaps expense.

In a RPG, "work" is just playing the game. So putting in work to find the item means either (i) making moves that will trigger the GM to tell you, as a player, what further moves you have to make to find the item, and/or (ii) the chance of failure is "relocated", from the chance that the angel feather is actually not what the PC is after to a chance that the PC never actually comes face-to-face with the prospects of finding a useful artefact.

It is (ii), in particular, that makes me describe the approach I took as more interesting.

 

[pemerton]

The other thing that keeps coming to mind is, neither side (GM and players) is immune to making mistakes from time to time. Sometimes players will wrongly advocate for a fictional state change that would, in fact, make the game worse. Sometimes the GM will wrongly impede players from advocating for their character agendas. Sometimes the GM offers too few concessions to the narrative, sometimes the players ask for too many.

GM experience plays a big role in making this work.

This is all true. That's why I've been posting assuming a GM who is doing what s/he set out to do.

It's also why I think detours through "pemerton doesn't trust GMs" and the like are just that - detours. Preferring RPGing in which players exercise significant agency over the content of the shared fiction has nothing to do with distrusting the GM, or thinking the GM will do a bad job of "telling the story". It's rather than (as a player, and as a GM) I don't want the GM to be telling a story - because I am looking for a different sort of thing out of RPGing.

It's very easy for me to see why an inexperienced GM would be adverse to a "Story Now"/player-front style---they haven't yet mastered techniques of pacing and scene framing, or possibly are unsure about how to appropriately re-frame player action declarations that cross the line of the Czege Principle.

But this I don't really agree with. The way to learn to manage pacing is to try it. And perhaps read a bit of advice around it. But the idea that it's easier to deliver a good RPGing experience by doing something else (say, establishing a whole lot of setting, some of which serves as unrevealed fictional positioning that then affects the adjudication of declared actions) I think is unwarranted.

There's lots of "rules" around how to write effective fiction, but two of the most important are "Never let your protagonist earn a victory cheaply," and "Don't let your characters act out of character."

<snip>

As far as the problem of allowing the PCs to have their victories come too cheaply, this is not unique to "Story Now"/player-front play. Every edition of D&D from 3.x onward has had encounter difficulty guidelines to specifically address this. It doesn't matter if player victory comes too cheaply because the GM didn't set encounter difficulty high enough, or it comes too cheaply because the group consented to an inappropriate level of fictional authoring----the result is still unsatisfying.

"Too cheaply" in a RPG can often be related to resolution mechanics. If something is a "big deal" - if it carries heft in play, in terms of mechanical heft, time spent, player-side resources brought to bear, and possible consequences of failure - then I generally think it will not be too cheap.

 

[Lanefan]

"Too cheaply" in a RPG can often be related to resolution mechanics. If something is a "big deal" - if it carries heft in play, in terms of mechanical heft, time spent, player-side resources brought to bear, and possible consequences of failure - then I generally think it will not be too cheap.

And this gets right back to the map-in-the-castle example.

If for whatever reason finding this map is a big deal, then having it turn up on the first successful search roll* (as a player-driven system would resolve the search-the-room-for-the-map action declaration) gives it away too cheaply simply through resolution mechanics. In a DM-driven system she can, if desired, put the map behind various traps and defend it with various opponents**, knowing all the while where it is and what obstacles the PCs will have to either overcome or bypass in order to get it.

* - this also means the DM can't have the map's specific location be somehow defended, as until it is found it doesn't have a specific location.
** - e.g. if it's in a breadbox in the kitchen the breadbox could be lethally trapped, and a phantom snake could be in there with the map to defend it, and the kitchen could be the home of the cook's fearsome ghost; meanwhile the study could have all kinds of traps, hints, etc. to steer the PCs toward looking there as a diversionary defense of the map's actual location.

Lan-"though even in a DM-driven game the PCs will sometimes beeline straight to the solution and bypass all the obstacles by sheer luck"-efan

 

[Maxperson]

My wife has written several novels now (none published yet, sadly), and she and I talk constantly about story and narrative pacing, character arcs, plot arcs, etc. There's lots of "rules" around how to write effective fiction, but two of the most important are "Never let your protagonist earn a victory cheaply," and "Don't let your characters act out of character."

"Story Now" play, as I see it, is an attempt to directly address the second point. If players/characters aren't allowed to advocate for their narrative agenda in RPG play, they are in effect, "acting out of character."

At which point, the player is forced to subsume their actual character design and just "go along with it." This is essentially what I ended up doing with my PC for a year in the last Savage Worlds game in which I was a player. I had established clear narrative stakes for her through her character background and her choice of magical talents---she will valiantly fight against any and all forms of slavery.

Yet that dramatic need got addressed for maybe all of two sessions out of 27 or 28, and in mostly perfunctory, unsatisfying ways. And at one point I would have willingly traded out that character for one more suited for "GM scene tourist" play, but by that point she was kind of critical to party strategy. Her unorthodox set of magical talents complimented the rest of the group, and other players had already made character building choices based on some of her characteristics . . . so, she stayed on as a PC.

I don't think that they are in effect, "acting out of character." Character is more wide reaching than that. I think it's more a case of "How do I want to play out the character."

For me, I set the personality of my PC. I add in likes and dislikes and quirks, including for example a hatred of slavery for my favorite PC of all time. I set goals for him. Then I stick to that character through all that comes his way. I may never have narrative control over a situation, but that doesn't keep me from keep character completely. Even if he never encounters slavery in the game, it's still a part of him that I know, and that comes out in little ways at appropriate times. If he encounters a father that is controlling of his kids, he might make a comment about slavery or slave drivers. And so on.

For the kind of play involving narrative control, it seems like the focus changes from just staying in the character you build, to exploring much more deeply, fewer aspects of that character, and in different ways.

I think both methods allow for deep character roleplay and exploration, but not in the same manner. It just depends on your preference.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. Because starting in the bazarr (i) made it easier to bring 3 PCs into the situation, and (ii) it seemed more interesting.

Two thoughts in response.

(1) The angel feather, as it turned out, was not the item needed. It turned out to be cursed (in the play of the game, this was the consequence that followed upon a failed Aura-reading check) and got the PCs into a reasonable amount of trouble.

(2) The notion of "some work" needs interrogation here. In the real world, work si work: time, effort, perhaps expense.

In a RPG, "work" is just playing the game. So putting in work to find the item means either (i) making moves that will trigger the GM to tell you, as a player, what further moves you have to make to find the item, and/or (ii) the chance of failure is "relocated", from the chance that the angel feather is actually not what the PC is after to a chance that the PC never actually comes face-to-face with the prospects of finding a useful artefact.

It is (ii), in particular, that makes me describe the approach I took as more interesting.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective. To me, getting handed something on a silver platter that may be pewter if you don't succeed at the roll isn't as interesting is pursuing a goal and achieving it after some effort. I also enjoy forcing the DM to react to me as I drive the story forward with my PC's actions, so I very proactively go after my goals. One day I'd like to try your method, though. While I don't think I'd find it to be as much fun as my style, I do think it would be fun.

 

[pemerton]

And this gets right back to the map-in-the-castle example.

If for whatever reason finding this map is a big deal, then having it turn up on the first successful search roll* (as a player-driven system would resolve the search-the-room-for-the-map action declaration) gives it away too cheaply simply through resolution mechanics. In a DM-driven system she can, if desired, put the map behind various traps and defend it with various opponents**, knowing all the while where it is and what obstacles the PCs will have to either overcome or bypass in order to get it.

* - this also means the DM can't have the map's specific location be somehow defended, as until it is found it doesn't have a specific location.

Your asterisked claim is not true.

Actual play example: it is well-established in my main 4e game that at least one fragment of the Rod of Seven Parts is embedded in the body of Miska the Wolf Spider. Hence the Rod can't be completed until Miska is defeated.

Exactly the same thing could be true in relation to the map.

And there are multiple ways that this could come about: it could be an element of framing backstory established by the GM; it could be a consequence of a check - eg a player declares a Lore-type check to learn more about the map, say with the goal of generating an augment of some sort to subsequent attempts to find the map, and the check fails and hence what the PC learns is something that makes it harder to get the map (such as that it is guarded by something-or-other).

As far as "too cheaply" is concerned, my response is the same as to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] upthread: the effect of the GM interpolating "obstacles" that must be overcome or bypassed is to make the focus of play something the GM authored rather than something the player has made salient. I don't see how that makes the acquisition any less cheap: the player is not actually doing anything harder, but rather is just working his/her way through the GM's material before getting to the stuff that s/he has flagged as important.

 

[pemerton]

When killing an orc, you also get "retries". If you miss(fail to kill the orc), you can retry until you kill it or something else happens to prevent success.

There is a combat system whereby the GM, using the orc as his/her playing piece, is wearing down the PC's hit points. This puts quite a strong limit on retries.

(If the PC is trying to kill an orc who doesn't fight back, then in D&D it is the same as 3E-style skill checks with no finality of resolution.)

 

[Maxperson]

As far as "too cheaply" is concerned, my response is the same as to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] upthread: the effect of the GM interpolating "obstacles" that must be overcome or bypassed is to make the focus of play something the GM authored rather than something the player has made salient. I don't see how that makes the acquisition any less cheap: the player is not actually doing anything harder, but rather is just working his/her way through the GM's material before getting to the stuff that s/he has flagged as important.

It is more challenging. Just as you had a roll for success or failure, there will be rolls for success and failure along the way to the item. The player when his PC encounters those challenges will have to figure out ways to bypass the challenge without rolling, or let the dice dictate fate. Figuring out ways past the challenge is harder than just rolling for an item handed to you on a platter. Then, if failure happens, the player has to figure out new ways to get to the item.

Let's go back to the feather example. In your game you just plopped the PCs down in the bazar where they could locate the item. In our game the player would have to come up with the idea to go to the bazar to look around, or try to locate someone in the city who knows where someone might be selling an item of that sort, or seek out a sage, or... That right alone has increased the challenge level over your method, and without "working his way through the GM's material". The DM simply won't have material for everything the players try to do and will be reacting to the story that the players are driving.