What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Maxperson]

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.

Yes, because the DM told him stuff. Then he does something else, and the DM tells him stuff. Players using their agency in order to get me to respond by telling them stuff happens in my game, too.

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.

Based on their goals and actions, just like in your game. Only the motivation is really different. They aren't exploring character the same way you are.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, because the DM told him stuff. Then he does something else, and the DM tells him stuff. Players using their agency in order to get me to respond by telling them stuff happens in my game, too.

I think the key difference is it was the PLAYER who started this process, by describing his goal, to rescue his brother from a demon. The GM then reacted to that by INVENTING the bazaar and the angel feather (its possible some prompting or back-and-forth existed here, we don't really know for sure all the details of play at the table).

Now, its true that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] probably started the action in Hardby for whatever reason, but again we don't know really the details of how these decisions were made. In effect Hardby is just a name of a town that comes with some regional geography attached. Even this choice must ultimately be made with the player's agenda in mind. Maybe they established WoG as an overall setting beforehand and created character backstory with that in mind, or maybe Pemerton just whipped out a map he happened to have in his bag. I think he did mention that Hardby was selected based on some general criteria as an interesting place to start an adventure. I would say these COULD be GM driven choices, within certain bounds, but they seem to play a fairly limited part in the end result, being color in essence.

Based on their goals and actions, just like in your game. Only the motivation is really different. They aren't exploring character the same way you are.

Well, they MAY be, and you MAY provide for that. Its just not guaranteed as it would be in Pemerton's game, where NO MATTER WHAT the player's agenda, it will become a focus of play. I guess there could be the usual sorts of limitations here based on the concurrence of the rest of the table with whatever the player is wanting. There will perhaps also sometimes be a question between player agendas and needs as to exactly how an adventuring party can be constructed from the result, or if it can. I recall this was an ongoing theme of Pemerton's long-running 4e campaign, where several characters had almost diametrically opposed interests at certain points.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the key difference is it was the PLAYER who started this process, by describing his goal, to rescue his brother from a demon. The GM then reacted to that by INVENTING the bazaar and the angel feather (its possible some prompting or back-and-forth existed here, we don't really know for sure all the details of play at the table).

That's what I'm trying to say, though. The players start processes in my game as well, and then I react to them. I've told [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] that several times, but he continues to ignore it in favor of his biased opinion of my playstyle. I know that there are differences in the playstyles, but those differences are as many or as great as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] wants them to be.

Well, they MAY be, and you MAY provide for that. Its just not guaranteed as it would be in Pemerton's game, where NO MATTER WHAT the player's agenda, it will become a focus of play. I guess there could be the usual sorts of limitations here based on the concurrence of the rest of the table with whatever the player is wanting.

Perhaps it's not as guaranteed, at least not within the playstyle as a whole. In my game it pretty much is, though.

There will perhaps also sometimes be a question between player agendas and needs as to exactly how an adventuring party can be constructed from the result, or if it can. I recall this was an ongoing theme of Pemerton's long-running 4e campaign, where several characters had almost diametrically opposed interests at certain points.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean with that first sentence. As for the second, I've had PCs rarely take oppositional positions.

 

[pemerton]

These are all cogent points.

Thankyou!

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.

<snip>

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.

Sure. I'm reasonably familiar with this kind of play.

I just think it's fairly obvious that (i) it doesn't invovle a great deal of player agency over the content of the shared fiction, and (ii) it does involve a lot of the players making moves that trigger the GM to tell them stuff - this is what "spectating" and "explaining the histoy and backstory" and "exploring in great detail" actually consist in, at the game table.

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

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

The key word in "story now" is now. Which contrasts with your later ("later in the campaign").

And a consequence of "now" as opposed to "later" is that the content and framing have to be generated in some fashion other than just having the GM gradually reveal it all as appropriate moves are performed in the course of play. This is where one aspect of player agency comes in.

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).

I agree with the last sentence. But 4e also advocates for player-authored "quests". And the backstory is not hidden by default - much of it is in the PHB, or in the MM and accessible through a fairly straightforward knowledge check mechanic. (We could ask what the point is of making players spend PC build resources on getting the backstory, but that's a different matter.)

 

[pemerton]

I've told [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] that several times, but he continues to ignore it in favor of his biased opinion of my playstyle. I know that there are differences in the playstyles, but those differences are as many or as great as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] wants them to be.

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

It's not about "wanting" there to be differences. It's that, on the measures I care about, there are fundamental differences.

I get that you don't care about the same things I do. Hence you don't notice, or care about, the differences that matter to me. Pointing out this thing about you isn't going to change anything about me, though!

Yes, because the DM told him stuff. Then he does something else, and the DM tells him stuff. Players using their agency in order to get me to respond by telling them stuff happens in my game, too.

In the actual bit of gameplay I described, the game begins with the player confronted with a situation that puts his PC's belief to the test: is this feather the thing you want? what will you do, and risk, to get it?

In the hypothetical bit of gameplay you have described, the game begins with the player confronted with a situation that requires him to learn stuff from the GM, and make logisitical and tactical choices to try and have the chance to actually put his PC's belief to the test.

That's the difference that matters to me.

I think the key difference is it was the PLAYER who started this process, by describing his goal, to rescue his brother from a demon. The GM then reacted to that by INVENTING the bazaar and the angel feather

Correct.

The players start processes in my game as well

But by your own account, they do not generate or shape the content of the shared fiction. When the PC's goal is to find an item, you don't start with a situation involving the question - is this the item I'm seeking - which is a fiction that has been read straight off the player-authored goal. You start with a GM-authored description of a place with libraries and oracles and sages and the like, and the players start working there way through this GM-established fiction.

Based on their goals and actions, just like in your game. Only the motivation is really different. They aren't exploring character the same way you are.

Nor are they exercising the same sort of agency over the content of the shared fiction, as the GM is not authoring the framing components of the shared fiction so as to speak directly to the player's evinced conception of the character.

its true that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] probably started the action in Hardby for whatever reason, but again we don't know really the details of how these decisions were made. In effect Hardby is just a name of a town that comes with some regional geography attached. Even this choice must ultimately be made with the player's agenda in mind. Maybe they established WoG as an overall setting beforehand and created character backstory with that in mind, or maybe Pemerton just whipped out a map he happened to have in his bag. I think he did mention that Hardby was selected based on some general criteria as an interesting place to start an adventure. I would say these COULD be GM driven choices, within certain bounds, but they seem to play a fairly limited part in the end result, being color in essence.

Hardby is colour.

The player had already circulated a picture of the tower where his PC had been an apprentice wizard studying with his brother (pre-possession). From memory, the photograph in question is of an Indian castle. The landscape is moderately arid. In GH terms, this suggests the Abor-Alz.

The wizard PC is called Jobe the Blue, and is meant to evoke Alatar of the Istari, who travelled to the East of Middle Earth. This suggests a town which is more like Zamora in Tower of the Elephant, or Hort Town in The Farthest Shore.

Plus there needs to be a forest nearby for another PC to come from, and Celene not too far away for the Elf PC to come from.

When yu look at the GH map and keep the above three paragraphs in mind, Hardby stands out. But as you say it's just colour - a name to be given to the place where events unfold.

in Pemerton's game, where NO MATTER WHAT the player's agenda, it will become a focus of play. I guess there could be the usual sorts of limitations here based on the concurrence of the rest of the table with whatever the player is wanting. There will perhaps also sometimes be a question between player agendas and needs as to exactly how an adventuring party can be constructed from the result, or if it can. I recall this was an ongoing theme of Pemerton's long-running 4e campaign, where several characters had almost diametrically opposed interests at certain points.

Conflict between PC goals, to a greater or lesser extent, is a recurrent element in my RPGing. Apart from its inherent interest (think eg LotR, where the fellowship needs to go to Mordor but Aragorn's main desire is to go to Gondor) it's an effective way to generate meaningful choices and a bit of drama at the table.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, they MAY be, and you MAY provide for that. Its just not guaranteed as it would be in Pemerton's game, where NO MATTER WHAT the player's agenda, it will become a focus of play.

So what happens if the player doesn't have an agenda, or a pre-set idea of what story she wants to play through? What if she'd rather let her 'agenda' build itself out of what happens during the run of play? Or, in a broader sense, what happens if she wants to react to what the DM gives her to work with rather than having the DM react to what she gives them?

I guess there could be the usual sorts of limitations here based on the concurrence of the rest of the table with whatever the player is wanting. There will perhaps also sometimes be a question between player agendas and needs as to exactly how an adventuring party can be constructed from the result, or if it can. I recall this was an ongoing theme of Pemerton's long-running 4e campaign, where several characters had almost diametrically opposed interests at certain points.

This has been one of my questions also, but I can see ways both friendly (resolve them consecutively rather than concurrently) and infriendly (a little PvP, anyone?) to get around the issue.

The key word in "story now" is now. Which contrasts with your later ("later in the campaign").

The story now might be something as simple as dealing with a tribe of raiding orcs; but in the course of doing so we've learned the local Baron is corrupt. Dealing with him and all his guards and advisers is way outside our pay grade at the moment, and as we don't know who else we can trust with this knowledge we-as-PCs (and as players) just file it away for a later time when we think we can handle what he might throw at us.

It's called player-side long range planning.

And a consequence of "now" as opposed to "later" is that the content and framing have to be generated in some fashion other than just having the GM gradually reveal it all as appropriate moves are performed in the course of play. This is where one aspect of player agency comes in.

And where another aspect of player agency - that of choosing what to do - is denied as a trade-off.

I've had PCs rarely take oppositional positions.

That's a bit surprising, in that it can happen so easily particularly if players are independently coming up with their own intended story-lines. Could be something as simple as, in say a court-intrigue game, one player-as-PC setting her goal as marriage to the Duke and another setting her goal as the overthrow and death of this same Duke.

Lanefan

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's what I'm trying to say, though. The players start processes in my game as well, and then I react to them. I've told @pemerton that several times, but he continues to ignore it in favor of his biased opinion of my playstyle. I know that there are differences in the playstyles, but those differences are as many or as great as @pemerton wants them to be.

Perhaps it's not as guaranteed, at least not within the playstyle as a whole. In my game it pretty much is, though.

Yeah, I believe you. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] then at this juncture asks "so why have GM pre-generated content"? And there are reasonable answers to that, which we all acknowledge. I DO believe that heavy backstory/elaborate setting can present some disadvantages/dangers. I think GMs get constrained and invested more than they think they do, but clearly most GMs are happy to have a backstop of existing lore, maps, adventures, etc to quickly draw from, even if they do extemporize or adapt a lot.

A lot of the objections or doubts about player-centered Story Now kind of games though I think is somewhat forced. I guess it takes really playing in a game which is unabashedly of that ilk and takes it the whole way to nothing predetermined at all to see what playing it is really like.

 

[Maxperson]

I get that you don't care about the same things I do. Hence you don't notice, or care about, the differences that matter to me. Pointing out this thing about you isn't going to change anything about me, though!

That works both ways, which is probably why you get our playstyle wrong so frequently.

In the actual bit of gameplay I described, the game begins with the player confronted with a situation that puts his PC's belief to the test: is this feather the thing you want? what will you do, and risk, to get it?

In the hypothetical bit of gameplay you have described, the game begins with the player confronted with a situation that requires him to learn stuff from the GM, and make logisitical and tactical choices to try and have the chance to actually put his PC's belief to the test.

That's the difference that matters to me.

Except the game play begins with the player telling me what he wants to do, not me confronting him with a situation that requires him to learn stuff. He tells me what he wants done, and then I respond. Dice get rolled and success or failure takes over.

 

[Maxperson]

That's a bit surprising, in that it can happen so easily particularly if players are independently coming up with their own intended story-lines. Could be something as simple as, in say a court-intrigue game, one player-as-PC setting her goal as marriage to the Duke and another setting her goal as the overthrow and death of this same Duke.

Lanefan

Not so surprising when you realize that our session 0 involves the players and I all contributing 3 ideas for campaigns. Then if anyone has a dislike for an idea, they can nix it. Usually a few get tossed that way. Then they each rank the ideas in order from 1-X(the number of ideas). We tally the totals and drop all but the highest 3. Then they discuss and decide which one to play, taking another vote if one can't be decided on. Usually, the ideas involve a theme of some sort and while the PCs might have different goals, but they are typically similar, so direct opposition is rare.

 

[Maxperson]

A lot of the objections or doubts about player-centered Story Now kind of games though I think is somewhat forced. I guess it takes really playing in a game which is unabashedly of that ilk and takes it the whole way to nothing predetermined at all to see what playing it is really like.

I've said many times that I don't think it will be my cup of tea, but that I'd like to try it someday to be sure.