What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Maxperson]

What counts as effective difference obviously is relative to things that matter to people.

What matters to me is the actual experience of playing the game - at each moment of play, what fiction is the focus of play? where did it come from? why do we care about it?

Given those concerns, the difference between a GM-authored obstacle that must be played through before we get to the thing the player cares about and a GM-authored consequence for a failed check in dealing with the thing the player cares about is vast. The first is GM-driven and verges on a railroad: the player has to jump through the GM's hoops before play actually gets to what s/he wants it to be about. The fact that there might be multiple ways of jumping through the hoops - bribe a guard or visit a sage or whatever - doesn't reduce its railroad-y character. The player still has to play through all this GM-authored stuff before getting to the bit s/he's interested in.

The second is the player being confronted with a situation that speaks to the PC's dramatic need. The player makes choices about that - try to buy it? try to steal it? try to analyse it? - and the results of these choices yield consequences that the GM authors having regard to these same dramatic needs.

There's still no effective difference in how it plays out. You can prefer the reasons behind how you get to the end point, but the end point is the same and both styles author them under very similar circumstances, which I spelled out above and will do so again below.

"There's no effective difference between the DM obstacle in my style, and you creating the curse obstacle in your via the failed roll. In both instances the players have to overcome an obstacle that the DM put in the way. In both instances the players desires drove that obstacle into being through their desires. In both instances the story moves forward ONLY because of the players, as the DM is just reacting to what the players do."

I also don't know how you can say my style verges on railroading when it plays out very similarly to the way yours does. My style doesn't even remotely come close to forcing players down one path, so again you betray your lack of understanding about how my style works. You'd think that by now you'd stop making these absurd statements about a style you don't understand. I get that you THINK you understand it, but given how many times pretty much everyone who plays my style lets you know how far off base you are with your comments, you probably should step back and re-assess how much you truly understand.

The episode of play I described is about a wizard who is in Hardby, hoping to find an item to help him free his brother from possession haggling over an angel feather, and learning that it is cursed.

The player made the choice that made angel feathers salient (ie the player authored the PC's belief). The player made the choice that might reveal the feather as cursed (ie to read the aura of the feather).

The hypothetical example you put forward involves situations whose content is established by the GM; and where the consequences will also be established by the GM. The payer "drives the story forward" only in the sense that the player declares actions. That is to say, it is a RPG.

That's simply not true. While the rules might allow me to tell the player that there are no wizards in this large city, or no sages, or..., the social contract does not. A large city will have those things in it, so when the player tells me that he is seeking them out, I have no real choice but to react in a way that allows the player a chance of success. And again, there is no effective difference between you establishing consequence or a challenge in response to a player declaration, and me doing the same thing. The only difference is one of motivations "what fiction is the focus of play? where did it come from? why do we care about it?", and motivations don't create an effective difference here.

Suppose the check succeeds and the PC identifies some useful trait of the feather. He still has to acquire it somehow. He still has to use his Alchemy and Enchanting to work it into some usable form. This would require tools which he currently doesn't have. And he still has to find his brother!

Your initial post said nothing about further work to make it usable. It made it seem like the angle feather magic item would be useful in freeing his brother. If there's more to do, then it sounds a lot more like the way I do things. It's just the motivational stuff that is sometimes different.

And as I already posted upthread - "work" here is inapt. We're talking about a hobby, a pastime, playing a game. The question isn't whether or not the player has to "work" for anything. It's about whether the focus of the play is on the stuff the player has flagged, or some other stuff the GM wants to play through.

You think hobbies, game and pastimes don't involve work? Work, effort, not wanting things to be easy, call it whatever you want, but a lot of people want it in their hobbies, games and pastimes.

 

[Lanefan]

The game has to start somewhere. A bazaar is barey less traditional than a tavern!

What is significant about the bazaar scene is not that it is a bazaar, but that a peddler is selling an angel feather.

In a bazaar, which the PCs might want to further explore. (though if this was the very start of the campaign they might not have much money to spend...)

If framed into this situation as the puck-drop scene my first (and probably second, and third...) question would be something like "OK, there's a pedlar selling feathers. What else is here? What's the weather doing? What else is for sale at the other vendors? [which of the following I'd ask would be dependent on what I'm running as a character] What are my opportunities for stealing stuff? Do I see any thieving going on that I need to act upon, or report to the authorities? Does the general atmosphere of the place make me think I need to take extra precautions? Etc. Etc.

Just because my story and drama might be best served by the feather-selling dude doesn't for a second mean I-as-PC am going to ignore everything else around me; I-as-player want to know what's going on around my PC and whether I either need to or want to interact with it, and if I see some thieving happening and I'm playing the sort (or, if I've given this no forethought, I decide on the spur of the moment that I'm playing the sort) who would be honour-bound to report it the feathers are just going to have to wait.

The PC can make mistakes or follow false leads - the feather turned out to be one!

The difference is that the false leads and distractions are not GM-driven material displacing the content that speaks to the PC's dramatic needs - ie the material that affirms player agency over the content of the shared fiction.

Still a false lead though - nice.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

There is no world around the PC, except as that "world" is authored.

It is unbelievably frustrating that you keep making this ridiculous claim that "there is no world around the PCs". If there isn't, then what are the PCs operating in and-or interacting with in the fiction? An endless empty void?

I'll repeat: there is no world around the PC, except as that "world" is authored.

That is not the claim that there is no world around the PCs. The claim is that there is no world except as it is authored.

The PCs are in a bazaar. That's the world I authored, as part of framing a situation that spoke to one PCs goal to find a magic item that would help him against a balrog. That world is no less "real" than one that has an intersection in it, or a village being attacked by troglodytes.

The peddler and angel feather aren't less "real" because they engage the dramatic needs of the PC.

That's the point I'm making. You are not advocating for a more "real" world, or more player choice. You're advocating for more GM authorship and less player influence. That's your prerogative, but surely you can see why I say that the approach you advocate gives the player less control over the content of the shared fiction!

All you are positing is that the GM should drive this authorship.

Of course she should. It's her job, as I've been saying the whole time.

But you don't increase player agency in respect of the shared fiction by giving the GM more authorship of it. Which is the point I've been making the whole time.

One may prefer more GM agency, or more player agency. That's a matter of taste. But you can't increase player agency by increasing GM agency. That's a contradiction!

I want to know much more about the world than merely the trivialities affecting my PC right now, if for no other reason than this knowledge allows me to make better choices as a player/PC. Who knows, maybe I'll completely chuck my original goals and beliefs if something more engaging comes along, or maybe I'll put them on hold and get back to them later.

There is nothing magical about GM-authored goals. There is no particular reason to suppose that they will be "more engaging".

As far as "better choices" are concerned, better in what sense? More exciting? See the previous paragraph. More efficient? More tactically sound? Now you're talking about a completely different approach to play from what I'm interested in.

As far as "knowledge of the world" - backstory known only to the GM doesn't make anyone's play experience richer. Here are some actual play reports that illustrate backstory emerging in the course of play.

As far as "trivialities" are concerned, there is generally nothing trivial about the events affecting the PCs in a player-driven RPG. The point can be generalised - if the stuff the PCs are involved in is always per se trivial, then following the GM's leads can make no difference. Conversely, if stuff that the PCs are involved in is sometimes not trivial, then what makes you think that any of the episodes of play I've described involves trivial stuff?

Just because you've put your character on a story path via its goals and beliefs doesn't (or certainly shouldn't) mean said character is locked into dealing with those and nothing else, nor does it mean those goals/beliefs cannot be changed or abandoned during the campaign as new information comes to light and you as PC learn more about the game world around you.

New information came to light - namely, the angel feather is cursed. This led the player to change goals for his PC - he reached out to a leading figure in his sorcerous cabal.

Later on, new information came to light - namely, his brother was killed in front of him. Hence the PC changed goals (there no longer being any hope of saving his brother).

What you say isn't controversial. But there's no connection between what you say, and the GM authoring vast swathes of fiction and revealing it to the players.

How can you possibly conclude that anything involving a scene-jump framing such as either of those examples doesn't reduce choices? Zero - which is how many choices the players/PCs have between one framed scene and the next in these examples - is always a reduction on the number they'd have had if any of the intervening scenery had been described

No. This is ridiculous.

Your players are wondering what to do about an intersection which you, the GM, have decided to tell them about.

My players are wondering what to do at the reliquary which I, as GM, have decided to tell them about.

My players have as many choices as yours. They have not lost any choices.

You are being misled, I think, by ignoring the fact that (i) it is all just fiction, and (ii) we are all mortal. I'm not going to run out of stuff before I die. The fact that I'm taking my stuff from player cues doesn't affect that.

you're using a rather narrow definition of 'agency' here, which excludes the agency of choice within the fiction.

The agency of choice within the fiction = choosing to declare actions that trigger the GM to say stuff. That is not exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction.

 

[pemerton]

There's still no effective difference in how it plays out. You can prefer the reasons behind how you get to the end point, but the end point is the same and both styles author them under very similar circumstances, which I spelled out above and will do so again below.

<snip>

I also don't know how you can say my style verges on railroading when it plays out very similarly to the way yours does. My style doesn't even remotely come close to forcing players down one path

<snip>

While the rules might allow me to tell the player that there are no wizards in this large city, or no sages, or..., the social contract does not. A large city will have those things in it, so when the player tells me that he is seeking them out, I have no real choice but to react in a way that allows the player a chance of success.

The end point can be the same if the GM dictates every choice to the players, and disregards every dice roll! But that doesn't tell us that there's no effective difference in how it plays out.

In my game, the player says "My PC won't leave Hardby without a magic item usable against my brother" and the starting situation is a peddler selling an angel feather, which may be such an item.

In your game, the player says "My PC won't leave Hardby without a magic item usable against my brother" and the starting situation is that the player has to start collecting information about the setting - ie getting the GM to tell him/her stuff.

That's the difference.

 

[Aenghus]

RPG groups with different goals are probably going to use different systems and mixes of technique to attempt to achieve them.

The analogy I find useful here is that detailed gameworlds with heavy worldbuilding are in some ways analogous to accurate historical drama, historical recreations or documentaries, except with a different world. IMO the more work players have to do to learn the world, the less accessible it is. The traditional alternative is for the players to learn the world bit by bit over time, whether that's one long sprawing campaign or a series of shorter campaigns and games.

Whereas player-focused games are more analogous to drama and soap opera, with focus on personal goals and interpersonal drama, with the setting being a more-or-less malleable backdrop that exists to facilitate the drama. There are even jokes about this re daytime soaps, wobbly sets, and convoluted plots. The backdrop doesn't matter as much in such shows as the focus is on the drama and characters, not the setting.

Disclaimer: Analogies are dangerous as they are imperfect and can be distracting, but still I think they can be useful so long as everyone remembers they are just analogies and not the actual thing.

There are lots of other elements which modify a RPG - Humorous or serious, slow-paced or fast-paced, naturalistic or interesting times, tone, genre, consistency, session length, campaign length etc etc.

On a personal note, I have been a player in a number of games where I was given referee assurances that my PC backstory would be relevant, and it never turned out to be. (And other games where it was). This could be because the game ended too soon, the game moved in a different direction, dice-rolls failed in game or the referee never made it possible.

Now in some cases I wasn't invested hugely in the PC backstory so it was fine, but there were cases where I wanted to explore something with the PC and I was annoyed when it never happened. Most older RPGs don't have formal ways for players to make requests with teeth.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'll repeat: there is no world around the PC, except as that "world" is authored.

That is not the claim that there is no world around the PCs. The claim is that there is no world except as it is authored.

The PCs are in a bazaar. That's the world I authored, as part of framing a situation that spoke to one PCs goal to find a magic item that would help him against a balrog. That world is no less "real" than one that has an intersection in it, or a village being attacked by troglodytes.

The peddler and angel feather aren't less "real" because they engage the dramatic needs of the PC.

That's the point I'm making. You are not advocating for a more "real" world, or more player choice. You're advocating for more GM authorship and less player influence. That's your prerogative, but surely you can see why I say that the approach you advocate gives the player less control over the content of the shared fiction!

But you don't increase player agency in respect of the shared fiction by giving the GM more authorship of it. Which is the point I've been making the whole time.

One may prefer more GM agency, or more player agency. That's a matter of taste. But you can't increase player agency by increasing GM agency. That's a contradiction!

There is nothing magical about GM-authored goals. There is no particular reason to suppose that they will be "more engaging".

As far as "better choices" are concerned, better in what sense? More exciting? See the previous paragraph. More efficient? More tactically sound? Now you're talking about a completely different approach to play from what I'm interested in.

As far as "knowledge of the world" - backstory known only to the GM doesn't make anyone's play experience richer. Here are some actual play reports that illustrate backstory emerging in the course of play.

As far as "trivialities" are concerned, there is generally nothing trivial about the events affecting the PCs in a player-driven RPG. The point can be generalised - if the stuff the PCs are involved in is always per se trivial, then following the GM's leads can make no difference. Conversely, if stuff that the PCs are involved in is sometimes not trivial, then what makes you think that any of the episodes of play I've described involves trivial stuff?

New information came to light - namely, the angel feather is cursed. This led the player to change goals for his PC - he reached out to a leading figure in his sorcerous cabal.

Later on, new information came to light - namely, his brother was killed in front of him. Hence the PC changed goals (there no longer being any hope of saving his brother).

What you say isn't controversial. But there's no connection between what you say, and the GM authoring vast swathes of fiction and revealing it to the players.

No. This is ridiculous.

Your players are wondering what to do about an intersection which you, the GM, have decided to tell them about.

My players are wondering what to do at the reliquary which I, as GM, have decided to tell them about.

My players have as many choices as yours. They have not lost any choices.

You are being misled, I think, by ignoring the fact that (i) it is all just fiction, and (ii) we are all mortal. I'm not going to run out of stuff before I die. The fact that I'm taking my stuff from player cues doesn't affect that.

The agency of choice within the fiction = choosing to declare actions that trigger the GM to say stuff. That is not exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction.

These are all cogent points. I think, to perhaps take something like [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s viewpoint for a moment, that you could recontextualize what he is talking about in terms of player agenda and goals. That is to say, he has a fixed primary goal as a player, which is to be a bit part of a much larger story. His preference is years long arcs of playing low level PCs in some largely pre-defined world where most of the important things which are going on have little or nothing at all to do with his character. Thus in important ways he's really spectating. He's engaged in the sense that his character exists in the world and 'does things' (perhaps exciting and dangerous things we would assume) and thus has some kind of 'stake', which may be reinforced by character backstory, which if not provided exclusively by the player is certainly at least vetted by and probably mostly written by the player.

You can simply see this as an overarching agenda. If [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] played in one of your games he would advocate for the GM to explain to him the history and complex backstory associated with persons, places, and things which were encountered within the scene frames and desire to explore each one in great detail as the opportunity arose. There might also be a 'primary quest' driving this in a more specific direction, and possibly 'side quests' that basically involve some exploration activity and backstory revelation that isn't directly involved in the 'primary quest'. These quests may also be more limited than some of the agendas that PCs often have in Story Now, which are often about core beliefs and values which drive them forward to the end of the campaign.

You can see how 4e actually is built around this kind of model to an extent. There is a fairly significant cosmological backstory, which the GM can flesh out as he chooses, and which is designed to hang adventure hooks off of. The game also provides major and minor quests, which are ideally suited to providing short-mid term PC goals, and can simply be used as a set of 'breadcrumbs' to pull the characters forward in an exploratory mode of play. Its also true it espouses 'get to the action', which is more of a Story Now concept, as well as 'say yes', but I don't think the designers were fully sold on one fixed game concept (which may be one of 4e's issues in and of itself).

 

[Lanefan]

These are all cogent points. I think, to perhaps take something like [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s viewpoint for a moment, that you could recontextualize what he is talking about in terms of player agenda and goals. That is to say, he has a fixed primary goal as a player, which is to be a bit part of a much larger story. His preference is years long arcs of playing low level PCs in some largely pre-defined world where most of the important things which are going on have little or nothing at all to do with his character. Thus in important ways he's really spectating. He's engaged in the sense that his character exists in the world and 'does things' (perhaps exciting and dangerous things we would assume) and thus has some kind of 'stake', which may be reinforced by character backstory, which if not provided exclusively by the player is certainly at least vetted by and probably mostly written by the player.

A summation that's close enough for rock 'n' roll.

I don't mind if after the years-long bit the PCs achieve higher level - they don't have to be low-level forever - but my definition of 'higher level' is still only in the 10-12 range (in 1e), others' may vary.

About the only thing I'd change here is where you say "in important ways he's really spectating", I'd put it that while during early parts of the campaign this is true it's also giving me (or us as a group) information and options as to what - out of what we're 'spectating' now - we'll choose to get involved with later in the campaign once we're up to the job.

You can simply see this as an overarching agenda. If [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] played in one of your games he would advocate for the GM to explain to him the history and complex backstory associated with persons, places, and things which were encountered within the scene frames and desire to explore each one in great detail as the opportunity arose. There might also be a 'primary quest' driving this in a more specific direction, and possibly 'side quests' that basically involve some exploration activity and backstory revelation that isn't directly involved in the 'primary quest'. These quests may also be more limited than some of the agendas that PCs often have in Story Now, which are often about core beliefs and values which drive them forward to the end of the campaign.

And this summation is about bang on.

I might not ask for all the details and history every time but when I did it would usually be out of a search for information to provide me with better - or at least different - options and choices than what's being given.

You can see how 4e actually is built around this kind of model to an extent. There is a fairly significant cosmological backstory, which the GM can flesh out as he chooses, and which is designed to hang adventure hooks off of. The game also provides major and minor quests, which are ideally suited to providing short-mid term PC goals, and can simply be used as a set of 'breadcrumbs' to pull the characters forward in an exploratory mode of play. Its also true it espouses 'get to the action', which is more of a Story Now concept, as well as 'say yes', but I don't think the designers were fully sold on one fixed game concept (which may be one of 4e's issues in and of itself).

Not just 4e. Any D&D edition can work this way.

Lanefan

 

[Kobold Boots]

1256 posts at an average (guesstimate) of 7m per to draft and post.. 146.5 hours since the post started.

I hope to heck that given the amount of time spent on this that there's at least that much actual cumulative game time from all participants.

KB

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A summation that's close enough for rock 'n' roll.

I don't mind if after the years-long bit the PCs achieve higher level - they don't have to be low-level forever - but my definition of 'higher level' is still only in the 10-12 range (in 1e), others' may vary.

About the only thing I'd change here is where you say "in important ways he's really spectating", I'd put it that while during early parts of the campaign this is true it's also giving me (or us as a group) information and options as to what - out of what we're 'spectating' now - we'll choose to get involved with later in the campaign once we're up to the job.

hehe, fair enough! I mean, yeah, I certainly don't think your characters are all couch potatoes or something like that. I think one of the things that strikes me is how you stick closely to this one agenda over multiple games. I think this a tendency a lot of players have, to work within a particular range of play goals that they find most interesting to them. Some people do tend to mix things up a bit more. Then again they may not sustain interest in whatever they're focused on this month over a longer term.

And this summation is about bang on.

I might not ask for all the details and history every time but when I did it would usually be out of a search for information to provide me with better - or at least different - options and choices than what's being given.

Right, there's a general thematic approach, exploring the game world, and then more immediate goals, which might still cover the whole career of a given character in some cases. I think this boils down to what WotC likes to call 'player type', explorer perhaps in this case.

Not just 4e. Any D&D edition can work this way.

Yeah, its not too hard to do in earlier editions, though the detailed mechanics can get in the way a lot. 2e certainly TRIED to espouse this kind of play. One reason it is often seen as philosophically aligned with 4e in some sense. I basically went from 2e to 4e and pretty much skipped 3e, so I found 4e to be rather familiar territory. Kind of a '2e done right' even. Now, in a lot of mechanical senses that's what 3e was aspiring to, they just got a lot of things wrong (IMHO).

 

[Lanefan]

1256 posts at an average (guesstimate) of 7m per to draft and post.. 146.5 hours since the post started.

Someone must have me blocked, then, as I show the post I've quoted as being #1238.

I hope to heck that given the amount of time spent on this that there's at least that much actual cumulative game time from all participants.

146.5 hours at 4 hours per session (average) gives about 36-and-a-half sessions; I play in one game and DM another which means I'll hit this over 18 weeks...let's say 22 weeks to account for skipping a few...