What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

From the PCs' perspective (a viewpoint you seem quite determined not to take even though it's highly relevant) the game world should ideally function like our real world in terms of not knowing everything, and sometimes having to make decisions based on little more than guesswork.

<snip>

In other words, instead of approaching an action declaration as "I'm a player using the game mechanics to have my character make a search move" think of it as "I (as Falstaff) think there might be a hidden door here, so I'll look for it while you keep watch".

From the PCs' perspective, s/he doesn't know where the map is (but hopes it is in the study, where s/he is searching); s/he does't know whether or not there is a secret door in the wall (but hopes there is, because that is her only chance for escape); s/he does't know that there is no forcefield blocking the ditch (but obviously believes there is not, or else wouldn't try to jump across it).

I can tell you, when (as my PC) I was hoping to meet a knight of my order as I travelled along the riverbank, I was thinking in character as Thurgon, Knight of the Iron Tower.

That has no bearing on how the resolution system should work, though.

This sort of thing only falls apart in combat, where mechanics tend to take over no matter what you do.

I would say, speak for yourself!

There is no reason why rolling dice in combat is any less immersive than in other contexts; or conversely, if you take an approach where the GM rolls all the dice and tells the players the outcome, that can be done in combat too.

And it naturally follows that for the PCs not to know things the players must also not know these things.

Actually, that doesn't "naturally" follow. Different tables take different views on this. For instance, here is an extract from an actual play report from my 4e game:

The "sneak through the Shrine glamoured as kuo-toa" skill challenge went pretty well, but for one hiccup: the player of the paladin hadn't been able to turn up to the session, and no one had a copy of his PC sheet, so (as GM) I had declared that the paladin had gone on ahead. (It is his quest, and a recent encounter with his god following death and resurrection have made him newly serious about it.) The other PCs - particularly the fighter, whose player was insisting on a strong player knowledge/character knowledge distinction - had been happy enough with this until they discovered that the way forward involved passing through the Shrine. And they had become concerned that the paladin - who has neither stealth nor water-breathing capabilities - must have been captured.

<snip>

What happens next session will depend on <snippage> whether or not the player of the paladin can turn up (as only then can we decide where the paladin actually is!).

So there you have an example where the PCs don't know what has happened to the paladin, but the players do know that, at the least, he is not dead, and probably not captured either.

But in any event, in the three examples I mentioned - the map, the secret door, and the presence/absence of a forcefield across the ditch - the player doesn't know.

So stop thinking about it as a game for a moment and start thinking about it as a fully immersive experience where in your mind you are your PC. Once you do this these inconsistencies and player-vs.-character knowledge disparities will quickly become both obvious and annoying.

Let's put to one side that I think what you describe is, literally at least, impossible - you, in your mind, are picking up dice, rolling them, writing down numbers on sheets of paper, eating and drinking snack food and beverages, etc.

Putting that to one side, what disparities are you talking about? There are no disparities in any of the examples I've described.

And even in the missing paladin example, I don't think the player of the fighter in my game found it any harder to bracket his knowledge of why the paladin was being narrated as missing (ie because the player couldn't make it to the session) than he did to put aside his knowledge of the fact that he was sitting at a table playing a game.

And as I already posted upthread, one of the biggest burdens on my own inhabitation of a player character is that I can't know what I think and feel (eg who are my friends? what are the customs around here? what are the rites of my church?) until I ask the GM to tell me. I find that quite dissociating.

And as you're (I think) the only one in here who has so harshly self-restricted your view and definition of what constitutes player agency, it's no surprise that you're catching some flak from those who see agency as a broader thing within the activity of RPGing beyond just this one element.

You seem to think I'm interested in word games. I'm not. I'm interested in the actual experience of RPGing. I want to do a certain thing. Personally, I've had no trouble doing that thing for 30-odd years (with the odd contrary experience along the way), and so I don't think I'm "harshly self-restricted".

I mean, what is it to you that I have a particular taste in RPGing? Apropos of which, . . .

And yes for this to work you need a DM who is good at a) world/setting building, b) adventure design, and [most important!] c) describing what you see/touch/smell/hear/taste in pretty good detail.

Your (c) is exactly what I've referred to as a focus of play being on taking moves that will trigger the GM to relate the fiction that s/he has established in his/her notes, or is establishing as if it were in her notes. That's not what I play RPGs for, either as GM or player.

 

[Lanefan]

From the PCs' perspective, s/he doesn't know where the map is (but hopes it is in the study, where s/he is searching); s/he does't know whether or not there is a secret door in the wall (but hopes there is, because that is her only chance for escape); s/he does't know that there is no forcefield blocking the ditch (but obviously believes there is not, or else wouldn't try to jump across it).

I can tell you, when (as my PC) I was hoping to meet a knight of my order as I travelled along the riverbank, I was thinking in character as Thurgon, Knight of the Iron Tower.

Perfect! And either you met one or you didn't. Cool.

But - and this might seem a minor twinge but it's relevant - there's a difference at the table between the two systems. Compare the following:

1. The PC doesn't know if the map is in the study or if there's a secret door in the wall, but searches in hopes that there is. The player declares the search action with those same hopes but knows the outcome is out of her hands just the same as it is out of the PC's hands in the fiction. PC knowledge and player knowledge are the same.

2. The PC doesn't know if the map is in the study or if there's a secret door in the wall, but searches in hopes that there is. The player declares the search action with full knowledge that a good roll WILL bring success even though the outcome is out of the PC's hands in the fiction. PC knowledge and player knowledge are systemically not the same.

Which means that no matter how hard the player in (2) tries to immerse herself there's always that meta-game tickle in her mind telling her that she'll always succeed on a good roll so why not try it; where in (1) the resolution is out of her hands and thus those meta-considerations somewhat disappear.

As for the forcefield across the ditch, that could be as simple as some invisible trickster in the next field seeing someone running toward a ditch and whipping up a Wall of Force there just for kicks.

I would say, speak for yourself!

There is no reason why rolling dice in combat is any less immersive than in other contexts; or conversely, if you take an approach where the GM rolls all the dice and tells the players the outcome, that can be done in combat too.

Perhaps, but a more usual approach (and one that's worked for ages) is to simply have combat use different mechanics from everything else.

I'm not saying this is the perfect answer by any means - combat as a system still has truck-size holes in it and pretty much always has - but to try and shoehorn everything else into using the same mechanics as combat is not going to fix anything, nor is trying to force combat to use mechanics usually applied to something else.

Actually, that doesn't "naturally" follow. Different tables take different views on this. For instance, here is an extract from an actual play report from my 4e game:

...

So there you have an example where the PCs don't know what has happened to the paladin, but the players do know that, at the least, he is not dead, and probably not captured either.

Yeah, stuff like that happens - but as in this particular case it was completely 100% preventable* I have no sympathy.

* - non-negotiable rule: character sheets stay with the DM between sessions; except if you want to take one home to update it during the week the DM is left with a full and accurate copy - and for exactly the reason you noted, that being if a player doesn't show up the PC can still be played.

In general, though, while stuff like this does happen and is sometimes unavoidable there's still some easy ways to minimize it:

- if the party splits up - e.g. one PC goes ahead scouting - then the players split up: the DM and the scout's player retreat to another room to play through the scouting (unless the scout and main party have long-range communication such that the scout can give regular updates).
- if a PC is doing something she doesn't want the others to notice - e.g. quietly leave a donation at a roadside shrine some other PC just spat on in passing - she passes the DM a note to that effect rather than say it out loud; and the DM replies by note if necessary.

But in any event, in the three examples I mentioned - the map, the secret door, and the presence/absence of a forcefield across the ditch - the player doesn't know.

Let's put to one side that I think what you describe is, literally at least, impossible - you, in your mind, are picking up dice, rolling them, writing down numbers on sheets of paper, eating and drinking snack food and beverages, etc.

Putting that to one side, what disparities are you talking about? There are no disparities in any of the examples I've described.

Well, see points 1 and 2 above for one clear disparity in meta-knowledge.

And even in the missing paladin example, I don't think the player of the fighter in my game found it any harder to bracket his knowledge of why the paladin was being narrated as missing (ie because the player couldn't make it to the session) than he did to put aside his knowledge of the fact that he was sitting at a table playing a game.

It's not like he had any choice - this was clearly a table accommodation for what was clearly a table problem for that one session: fair enough. It happens now and then.

And as I already posted upthread, one of the biggest burdens on my own inhabitation of a player character is that I can't know what I think and feel (eg who are my friends? what are the customs around here? what are the rites of my church?) until I ask the GM to tell me. I find that quite dissociating.

Where I find such things helpful, as parameters and guidelines I can then interact with in a manner of my choosing (once I know the local customs, for example, I-as-player can decide whether I-as-character follow them, ignore them, actively rebel against them, or whatever; and factor that into how I think and what I say/do).

I mean, what is it to you that I have a particular taste in RPGing? Apropos of which, . . .

Your (c) is exactly what I've referred to as a focus of play being on taking moves that will trigger the GM to relate the fiction that s/he has established in his/her notes, or is establishing as if it were in her notes. That's not what I play RPGs for, either as GM or player.

Which as GM you also do. Whenever you frame a scene you kind of have to narrate the PCs' surroundings - a dark room in a tower, an entrance to a fire giants' cavern, a dusty study on the ground floor of a castle - don't you? Where do those surroundings come from? Who authors them? And - again important! - how clearly and precisely do you describe these surroundings so as to fully inform any subsequent actions the PCs may take there?

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

It's one thing for the GM to be my eyes; another for him/her to also be my memories and introspection and intuitive grasp of things.

I feel like there's a gray area here, where the DM can also hand out minor information in regards to what your character knows, remembers and feels, without completely taking memories, introspection and intuition away from you.

 

[pemerton]

I feel like there's a gray area here, where the DM can also hand out minor information in regards to what your character knows, remembers and feels, without completely taking memories, introspection and intuition away from you.

Agreed - so much of the feel of RPGing depends on context, mood of the table, the details of whatever is being talked about at a particular time, etc, that it's hard to make general statements that are universally true.

My worry isn't about the gray/marginal cases, but the idea - to which I was responding - that the player gets to build the character and the GM does everything else. The practical way this is handled much of the time in RPGing is for the PCs to be travellers/strangers, who arrive (at the Keep; in the dungeon; in the village; etc) from somewhere else, and have no roots embedded in the site of the scenario.

As soon as that changes - and the PCs are doing stuff in a place that is their home - then I think the players have to be allowed to exercise some sort of influence over these elements of backstory (if the feeeling of "PC as alien" is to be avoided). Exactly how that is handled depends on system details and table preferences.

 

[pemerton]

Which as GM you also do. Whenever you frame a scene you kind of have to narrate the PCs' surroundings - a dark room in a tower, an entrance to a fire giants' cavern, a dusty study on the ground floor of a castle - don't you? Where do those surroundings come from? Who authors them? And - again important! - how clearly and precisely do you describe these surroundings so as to fully inform any subsequent actions the PCs may take there?

The difference from what you describe, though, is that the need for the narration to establish immersion is not the same as what you were referring to in the post to which I replied.

In "story now", the principal source of immersion should be the fact that the situation is "thematically compelling". That is, the GM - in establishing the framing - is drawing on already-available stuff that everyone at the table is committed to. So the need to build a "word picture" by reference to sensation is less. The description of the setting provides a context for action rather than itself being the engine of immersion.

In Cortex+ Heroic this is formalised via the mechanic of "Scene Distinctions" - the GM may declare up to 3 scene distinctions (and may spend GM-side resources for more if desired) at the start of an action scene. In the session I GMed yesterday, the first scene involved the PCs - who had just crossed a frozen mountain lake - commencing their final ascent into the northern mountains. The scene distinctions were Chill Winds, Narrow Defile Between the Peaks, and Unpassable Snow. This, together with the description of their adversaries (a flight of wyverns, one with a rider; and the chieftain of the mountain folk), sets the scene.

Later on, after the PCs left the village of the mountain folk, them were confronted by the Earth Giant (as they knew they would be). The scene distinctions were Boulders Aplenty, Terrible Drops (which had an attached mechanic increasing the risk of PCs falling down them should they or the giant edge towards them, or break away their edges) and Clear Skies (the PCs had climbed so high there were no more clouds about them).

These distinctions establish a context in which the PCs (as directed by their players) take action. They can also be operated upon - eg the PC sorcerer used his magic to dismiss the Unpassable Snow, and again to create eldritch walls and nets to neutralise the threat of the Terrible Drops. In an earlier session, a different PC was able to rescue villagers in need of rescuing by succeeding on actions to eliminate a Frightened Villagers scene distinction.

Other systems handle this differently: but in 4e, for instance, one way to convey the really salient elements of a situation is via mechanical specification using the rules for traps, hazards, terrain powers and the like. The setting comes to life through its role in resolving the action rather than simply via description.

Compare the following:

1. The PC doesn't know if the map is in the study or if there's a secret door in the wall, but searches in hopes that there is. The player declares the search action with those same hopes but knows the outcome is out of her hands just the same as it is out of the PC's hands in the fiction. PC knowledge and player knowledge are the same.

2. The PC doesn't know if the map is in the study or if there's a secret door in the wall, but searches in hopes that there is. The player declares the search action with full knowledge that a good roll WILL bring success even though the outcome is out of the PC's hands in the fiction. PC knowledge and player knowledge are systemically not the same.

Which means that no matter how hard the player in (2) tries to immerse herself there's always that meta-game tickle in her mind telling her that she'll always succeed on a good roll so why not try it; where in (1) the resolution is out of her hands and thus those meta-considerations somewhat disappear.

Once the source of "drive" or momentum in "story now" is appreciated, you can see the error of description in your (2). The PC tries because s/he has hope! And the player, rolling the dice, has the same hope. So there is not disparity at all, but rather congruence!

 

[Maxperson]

I can look at your game, or anyone else's game, and see how much agency occurs in it of the sort I care about, and then express a view about that. The fact that you don't measure your own game by my standard doesn't stop me doing that. Given that you are defending an example - namely, the forcefield example - in which the player obviously does not have unfettered agency over the content of the shared fiction (because the GM has already determined that the shared fiction can't include an unobstructed jump across the ditch), I would think it is obvious that you favour a game in which a burden on the sort of agency I care about is par for the course.

Your relativsitic contention, that no one is allowed to apply their standards to something that someone else enjoys for different reasons, is not applied in any other field of entertainment. To give a very trivial example from another entertainment medium: I have a good friend who dosn't much like violence in movies. She applies this standard even to movies in genres where violence is expected, like gritty thrillers and action movies. There is nothing surprising about doing that - it's how she works out what films she might or might not enjoy. It's hardly to the point that films she would rather not see, because too violent, might - by the standards of their genre - be considered only mildly violent.

Similarly, in describing what sort of RPGing I enjoy, I point to the features that are important to me. That you don't care to evaluate your own RPGing by reference to those standards doesn't bear on what I'm doing.

Cool beans. You can look at my game and see what you like and don't like about that. I get that and I agree with it. What you can't do is say that your game has more player agency than mine. You can say it has more of your type of player agency, but not that it has more player agency in general. Both of our games involve 100% player agency. You can't get higher than that. Your "player agency" doesn't exist in my game and vice versa. And you don't get to disparage other playstyles by calling them "choose your own adventure" or "players just declare actions to get the DM to say stuff" without getting called out for that sort of crap.

 

[Hriston]

What you can't do is say that your game has more player agency than mine. You can say it has more of your type of player agency, but not that it has more player agency in general.

I'm not [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], but I think it's clear to anyone who has been keeping up with the thread that the sort of agency he has been talking about, from the beginning of the thread, is agency over the content of the shared fiction. Say it with me: "agency over the content of the shared fiction", authorship, if you will. He hasn't said anything about the sort of agency that allows you to have your character try things that are doomed to failure, except that it seems rather limited with respect to the content of the shared fiction.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't know why you say that I am. Even in the post you replied to, I said that that is obviously the prerogative of people to play as they like.

I do wonder what the point is of emphasising that agency consists in the player being free to declare actions for his/her PC - because that is true in any episode of RPGing at any table in the world (isn't it?), and so doesn't seem to identify any very interesting feature of various approaches to RPGing.

....With respect, I think you are projecting something onto my posts that isn't there..

I am not interested in debating you Pemerton. I've seen enough of your posts over the years to know what the deal is here (and I also know what you are saying most of the time doesn't pan out at my actual table, no matter how well constructed your arguments are).

You do it through definitions. You take something that is positive (like player agency) and define it such a way that it completely matches your style, and then wonder aloud why a more common and widespread play style doesn't seem to have it (and you then your surprised when people take issue with it). Player Agency is a term that means lots of things. And it isn't widely used the way you are using it. It is like taking a word like 'railroad' and arguing that play styles that don't give players GM-like control over the setting (or if you prefer 'the fiction'), are always railroads. If you make that case, it shouldn't be a surprise that people find your attitude toward other play styles dismissive and even hostile. It is up there with arguing that real sandboxes don't exist. It is a disingenuous argument.

You are a good debater. You are intelligent. But I think there are a lot of things you do rhetorically that are pretty shady in these discussions.

I assume by "PCs" you mean players? Ie the players are free to declare actions for their PCs.

It is obvious that I mean PCs. It is the sort of thing readers and listeners should be able to discern from context. It doesn't require building a new lexicon or always being super precise about the division when it is clear a person is talking about a player character.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], but I think it's clear to anyone who has been keeping up with the thread that the sort of agency he has been talking about, from the beginning of the thread, is agency over the content of the shared fiction. Say it with me: "agency over the content of the shared fiction", authorship, if you will. He hasn't said anything about the sort of agency that allows you to have your character try things that are doomed to failure, except that it seems rather limited with respect to the content of the shared fiction.

No one takes issue with his conceptualizing player agency in that way. It is when he tries to deconsruct other peoples' notions of player character freedom (essentially arguing they are not truly free). There is a play style battle going on underneath all these arguments.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Cool beans. You can look at my game and see what you like and don't like about that. I get that and I agree with it. What you can't do is say that your game has more player agency than mine. You can say it has more of your type of player agency, but not that it has more player agency in general. Both of our games involve 100% player agency. You can't get higher than that. Your "player agency" doesn't exist in my game and vice versa. And you don't get to disparage other playstyles by calling them "choose your own adventure" or "players just declare actions to get the DM to say stuff" without getting called out for that sort of crap.

This is the issue people are taking.