What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

By framing scenes too tightly, and focusing only on things that are "important' it takes away some of the players/character's ability (agency) to decide what's important to them.

If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational [=scene framing] authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well.

The Edwards quote is from here. I think it puts forward one way of avoiding the issue suggested in the first quote.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think that you frequently exhibit a habit of claiming an understanding which you then undermine by your attempt to construct an argument which doesn't actually work, but which you then in 'Emperor's New Clothes' fashion insists does work. We have to conclude there's something you aren't grasping, or else that you're just REALLY stubborn and don't like to change your mind. I think you are a contrarian to be honest, that you simply enjoy refusing to ever accept an alternative once you've found an argument which seems to contravene them, even if it becomes untenable.

Honestly, I don't know what you are trying to DO, but the fact is, what the people are saying to each other in 'classic' play and in 'Story Now' play ARE DIFFERENT. They are different in content, different in game function, and different in intent. Of course there are some similarities, probably quite a lot of them, given that both techniques are part of a fairly limited type of activity, RPG playing. Its like basketball, a zone defense and a man-to-man defense are meaningfully different, but they're both part of the game which is played by the same rules either way. So they have a lot in common and sometimes it can be hard to say that a particular play belongs to one or the other technique. That doesn't make them the same! It isn't even particularly profound!



Look, someone has to define terms, so this kind of thing is fairly silly. Nobody died and left you 'god of terminology in RPGs'. Nor would you have an easy time demonstrating that your preferred shades of meaning of terms which admit of a certain degree of ambiguity in practice are so canonical that using them in a slightly different way is unequivocally decreasing comprehension.

The fact is, when someone advances a different theory of something, or even a different technique, often existing terminology is inadequate to explain it and can be ambiguous or even hold back the discussion. Thus when you encounter a set of ideas which are somewhat different from those you normally encounter it would be wise to consider how the terminology you are using is going to apply in that different paradigm. This is something that a number of people have consistently had trouble doing, and you're only one of them.

Do you have me confused with someone else? You maybe fireball me banging really really hard on the chess vs checkers drink, or maybe that I'm currently running both a traditional 5e game and a Blades game? Or that I've also argued against traditionalists when they've misrepresented narrativst play? Yes? No?

I mean, when communicating, it is the responsibility of BOTH SIDES to attempt to be clear as well as true to their conceptual structure, the argument/position they are making/taking.

Some of the things Pemerton says obviously make you uncomfortable, but its an open question whether he should not say them. Sometimes putting an idea in controversial terms is done to emphasize contrast, to focus attention on that idea, etc. In other words, when Pemerton says "declare actions to get the GM to say something" it clearly implies the resultant fiction which the GM says has specific characteristics and that is what is salient. Nor does it imply that ALL of the things that happen in the game consist only of this.

I can't think of a single thing that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has ever said that makes me uncomfortable. He's said things i disagree with, and, after a few rounds of back and forth I usually see where he's coming from, I find I often don't disagree with the core of his point but rather with the simplistic, broad-brush, highly negative way he presented it. The bit about reading to players things from the GM notes, for instance. He's got a point - a lot of traditional play does have the GM answering questions about the fiction as results of action declarations. But, the way he's defined "from notes" as anything made up by the DM as a response to action declarations ias so hopelessly vague that he's capturing gameplay from narrativist play as well and captures many moments of traditionalist play that are actually moving closer to narrativist play. That's counter productive because it's calling out some near similarities that could be used to bridge understanding and instead lumping them in with things that are most opposed. I say this as someone who made that jump and saw those similarities and differences. So, yeah, there I can agree with some underlying issues but the overall statement I cannot.

Largely, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] comes across less as someone actually interested in advocating his playstyle and more like someone being aggressively defensive abbot their playstyle. From his statements, he clearly feels like his playstyle had been attacked in the past and he did not like it.

 

[darkbard]

Do you have me confused with someone else?

Uh, Ovi, I think it may be you who is confused: [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s post was in response to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]....

 

[Maxperson]

Which terms? What "long standing definitions"? Where are these found? What makes you think you've got better cognitive access to them than I do?

And following on from these questions . . .

According to @Tony Vargas, the concept of "player agency" was invented at The Forge and means more-or-less what I use it to mean. I don't have my own independent recollection of the use of the term at The Forge - I'm more familiar with their notion of "protagonism", which has a similar (but maybe not identical) meaning.

I've just gone to check The Forge Provisional Glossary, and found that it generally uses the word "control" rather than "agency" - but it defines force as

The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. When Force is applied in a manner which disrupts the Social Contract, the result is Railroading.​

No definition is offered of "thematically-significant decision", but "theme" is defined as

The point, message, or key emotional conclusion perceived by an audience member, about a fictional series of events.​

Now you insist that Agency is just the players being able to control the actions of their PCs. I don't disagree with your description as a description - it entails that when there is force, players lack agency, and that seems right. (We could quibble over whether "decision" and "action" co-refer, but I'm not going to.)

All the action consists in the following: what does it mean for a player to control the actions of his/her PC? Or for another participant (such as the GM) to exercise control over those?

My own view - which is not an expression of a semantic opinion, but an expression of a preference for play - is that if a player's declared action cannot succeed, because of an unrevealed decision by the GM about the setting/backstory, then the player does not have control over his/her PC's actions. The GM has, on that occasion of play, exercised control.

The previous paragraph states a real view - that is, an opinion that I really have. You have a different view, reflecting different RPGing preferences - fine! But that doesn't stop me having, and stating, my view, using English words to express it.

I have some further views, too. If an action declaration doesn't pertain to anything of thematic/dramatic significance, and puts nothing at stake, then sometimes I think it is appropriate for the GM to say "no" and move things on. A paradigm of this, which @AbdulAlhazred mentioned not far upthread and which I think I may have mentioned a long way upthread, is - in my 4e game - searching bodies or rooms for generic loot. That is the sort of no-stake irrelevance that I'm not interested in spending time on at the table, and the alternative to "You find 12 cp" is "No, there's nothing there, now can we get on with it?!"

And here's another one: if the GM is adjudicating action resolutions by reference to a prior conception of the details of the gameworld - whether in the notes, or made up on the spot - then ascertaining those details starts to become a focus of play. Which, per se, means that thematically-significant action declarations becomes less of a focus of play. That makes RPGing less enjoyable for me.

And for fun and completeness, here's one example of how "say 'yes' or roll the dice" can be applied in the context of thematically significant action declarations in relation to loot:

The Forge was started in 1999. I found at least one reference to agency being used in a book called Hamlet on the Holodeck, which was published in 1997, so the The Forge didn't originate it. Another person mentioned that agency is a philosophical term that got borrowed for use by RPG players. I googled that and got.

"This article is about the philosophical concept. For other uses of the term, see Agency (disambiguation). In sociology and philosophy, agency is the capacity of an entity (a person or other entity, human or any living being in general, or soul-consciousness in religion) to act in any given environment. ~ Agency (philosophy) - Basic Knowledge 101"

That completely fits the definition that I've been using and would predate even RPGs.

 

[Hriston]

Apparently you don't understand the Golden Rule. It has two application. Initial action which is you doing to others what you would have them do to you. And the second application which is doing back others what they want you to do to them by doing it to you in the first place. I'm engaging in the second application here.

This seems to be yet another example of the sort of claim from you that [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] posted about up-thread.

I think that you frequently exhibit a habit of claiming an understanding which you then undermine by your attempt to construct an argument which doesn't actually work, but which you then in 'Emperor's New Clothes' fashion insists does work.

The "second application" you cite above doesn't work, and is based on a lack of understanding of the Golden Rule itself. The Golden Rule doesn't say, "Do unto others as they do unto you." The words "as you would have them" are there for a reason. What you are engaging in is reciprocity, a social norm from which the Golden Rule differs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Uh, Ovi, I think it may be you who is confused: [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s post was in response to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]....

Weird. My name was in the quote -- checked twice because I was so confused. Never read the quoted post, though, and I should have because tapatalk has done that before.

Let's all consider this as a regretted mistake, yeah? My sincere apologies.

 

[Tony Vargas]

According to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], the concept of "player agency" was invented at The Forge and means more-or-less what I use it to mean. I don't have my own independent recollection of the use of the term at The Forge - I'm more familiar with their notion of "protagonism", which has a similar (but maybe not identical) meaning.

I tend to just blame any double-talk more current than the Threefold Theory on them.

 

[Lanefan]

All the action consists in the following: what does it mean for a player to control the actions of his/her PC? Or for another participant (such as the GM) to exercise control over those?

My own view - which is not an expression of a semantic opinion, but an expression of a preference for play - is that if a player's declared action cannot succeed, because of an unrevealed decision by the GM about the setting/backstory, then the player does not have control over his/her PC's actions. The GM has, on that occasion of play, exercised control.

And though I understand this is your preference, there's one minor point within it that may be at the root of our differences:

The player does not have control over the results of his/her PC's actions.

This is true both in story-now and traditional. The player always has control over what actions her PC attempts (and, thus, she declares at the table) - she can declare anything at any time even including searching for a laser gun in the Duke's toilet - but has no control over what may result from attempting said declared actions. And we agree on the edge cases as well: clearly-out-of-genre declarations get a "no", very basic or obvious declarations (e.g. "we make camp for the night") get a "yes", and so forth.

The only difference between us lies in how the in-doubt results are determined. You want the results to be always determined on the fly by die roll, where I don't care if they're pre-determined by a game world state as yet unknown to me or by die roll at the time as in theory I - looking through the eyes of my PC - shouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.

I have some further views, too. If an action declaration doesn't pertain to anything of thematic/dramatic significance, and puts nothing at stake, then sometimes I think it is appropriate for the GM to say "no" and move things on. A paradigm of this, which [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] mentioned not far upthread and which I think I may have mentioned a long way upthread, is - in my 4e game - searching bodies or rooms for generic loot. That is the sort of no-stake irrelevance that I'm not interested in spending time on at the table, and the alternative to "You find 12 cp" is "No, there's nothing there, now can we get on with it?!"

Yet if the players do want to spend time on it, what then? Something has to give: either your enjoyment of running the game or their agency to declare what their PCs attempt in the fiction.

Lan-"treasure is never, ever, ever irrelevant; and every copper piece counts in the long run"-efan

 

[darkbard]

Yet if the players do want to spend time on it, what then? Something has to give: either your enjoyment of running the game or their agency to declare what their PCs attempt in the fiction.

I'm not pemerton (though I play him on TV), but my response would be to gently remind said players that by group consensus to this mode of Story Now gaming we had agreed not to spend time on nondramatic details like searching dead bodies (unless situationally salient), etc.

Lan-"treasure is never, ever, ever irrelevant; and every copper piece counts in the long run"-efan

I get and enjoy the joke, but this simply need not be true of Story Now gaming.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not pemerton (though I play him on TV), but my response would be to gently remind said players that by group consensus to this mode of Story Now gaming we had agreed not to spend time on nondramatic details like searching dead bodies (unless situationally salient), etc.

No need to remind me of said consensus as I'd never have agreed to it in the first place.

There seems to be an assumption (or is it baked into the system?) that story-now always directly equates to story-fast...but other than simple player or DM impatience there's no reason for this to be the case. If time needs to be spent on some non-dramatic but still useful-to-the-PCs aspect of the game e.g. looting bodies or "Greyhawking the dungeon" then spend the flippin' time. I mean, realistically it's what the PCs would in many cases do...

That, and no matter what dramatic story arc I've put myself on in the fiction - be it saving my brother's soul from a balrog or preventing giants from overrunning my family's lands or whatever - why can't I and my companions try to get rich (or at least make a decent living) as a side effect of sorting these dramas out?

I get and enjoy the joke, but this simply need not be true of Story Now gaming.

Eh...maybe; if the PCs are already independently wealthy or have taken vows of poverty or whatever. But otherwise they a) need to eat, and b) would realistically think now and then of what the rest of their lives will look like after their current dramatic arc is finished, as in: "once I've rescued my brother from the balrog do I go back to my previous life as a baker, or do I scoop up some of this wealth I'm leaving behind and retire to a life of relative luxury...or use it to buy better adventuring gear (or magic!) and make this my career instead?"

Lan-"and one day maybe I'll build a stronghold"-efan