What is *worldbuilding* for?

[AbdulAlhazred]

No matter how many times you write "irregardless" (and I've seen you use it a dozen times, at least), it is still not a word. Use "regardless" or "irrespective of" in its place. Grammar has no bearing on your argument, and I'm not trying to "take you down"; I am simply an English professor with just enough ingrained pedantry not to pass up an opportunity for education.

If people use it as a word, then its a word, lol. You may irlike it, but you cannot irregard it!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I realize you didn't specifically make this argument, but it has been suggested by others in other posts, other styles of play are not usually about 'playing gotcha' with adversary and obstacle placement. Just because a person isn't using fail forward or story now, it doesn't mean all the things they introduce are there to simply screw the players. Most GMs I know place things because they make sense to be there for some reason (i.e. this NPC really, really wants to protect his gold so he is going to place a clever and potentially lethal trap inside the main entrance to the vault). There are different points of view on how easy or hard that should be to figure and detect out in play. But if you are in a campaign where such a threat is hard to see, you know you are in such a campaign. You are not blind-sided when there is a lethal trap in the vault to the treasure, because you understand those are the kinds of threats that exist in this world (and you are probably not just going to walk straight into a vault).

Right, and genre expectations play into this as well, heists ALWAYS have some sort of nasty traps!

There are some styles of play where gotcha! can be a mode of play, Gygax definitely used it in some cases, but I don't think it was USUALLY intended to be something arbitrary, like a lethal trap in some random location (Tomb of Horrors being the exception, but you should KNOW the whole dungeon is a death trap anyway, could also be considered a genre convention).

My experience with 'classic' D&D-type play is GMs mostly don't do dick stuff, but there were always a few uncouth types who didn't get the word (or they were just 14 and did it anyway, what can you say). So its not really a 'system' issue, as you say. Fourth Core adventures were also filled with gotchas, but there was a big label on them too...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ok now we are getting into your particular house rules but standard 4e let's the GM set the difficulty and none of it's outlined play procedures call for you to explicitly discuss said ruling with the players. You modify a game enough and you can get it to do anything.

Eh, I kinda disagree, mildly. In 4e every element is normally 'level+0', and the GM is given, basically, a 'budget' in which to place some higher and lower level items (this is discussed in DMG1, though it isn't explained in budget terms this is effectively what it is). SCs are normally just assumed to be 'level+0', I don't think there's really a discussion of having them be anything else, but its an obvious possibility. Within SCs there's a budget of so many easy/medium/hard checks.

4e leaves some 'outs' for the GM to sneak in harder/easier checks, but if you strictly follow the adventure design guidelines those should be mostly closed (IE you don't make 500' cliffs at level 1). 4e STRONGLY ties difficulties to actual details of fiction too, so its clear that you don't have a pool full of acid that does 40hp/round of damage in a level 1 encounter area, the terrain section provides a pretty thorough list of terrains and there are solid rules on damage outputs and DCs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't know what occurred in the thread, and again, no interest in delving into a 200+ page thread. Nor am I interested in taking anyone's word on what happened (whether it is you Max or Pemerton). But I will say, even if he did define it well, I have seen most people use it to mean something other than what he seems to be saying. I can see how an argument around what agency means would develop.

I don't think your accurately describing Max's definition though. He offers a definition, I offer a definition (of how we see it used). I thought my definition was perfectly workable. It may not be how Pemerton plays or uses the term, and that is fine, but it isn't just me describing any amount of roleplaying. For us agency is about letting the players explore freely. For us it doesn't mean the setting has to respond to their wishes though. For us it is a session without railroads or similar constraints, where the GM reasonably considers any action we take or any direction we go, and will respond in a way that is sensible and probably exciting. You guys seem to think that is isn't real freedom for some reason (at least that is the impression I am getting). Gaming is pretty balkanized so people come into discussions using the same terms differently. And it isn't like I haven' been in these conversations before. There is a clique here that uses a lot of GNS terminology. But that terminology isn't widely embraced and even when it is, it often has taken on drastically different meaning from how it was used at the forge and places like it.

OK, I think its 'freedom', yes, but so is being supplied with oxygen, yet we wouldn't say that being so supplied is the same as being totally free. More to the point, EVERYONE has your form of agency in all but the most utterly degenerate of RPGing experiences, and I think we all agree it is pointless to talk about games where 'rocks fall and you die'.

So, I agree that there is a freedom to play your character, but I think its also clear that if the GM puts the character in a cage and no actions are feasible, that this freedom is then meaningless, right? So there ARE degrees of agency, its not just 'all the same', right?

Beyond that, if Pemerton says that another form of agency exists, which is expressed in terms of the players being able to choose what the 'direction of play' is (or at least have a lot of input on that in a direct sense, like introducing new elements to scenes such as secret doors) then that is something that isn't covered by the definition of agency you are using.

Is it really all that hard to see what Pemerton then means when he says there's a 'greater agency'? Beyond that he just pointed out what I said here, that your definition of agency really just describes RPGs IN GENERAL, that all of them must have this characteristic to be even worth discussing, so why do we need to spend time on that really?

Max's notion that one 'balances the other' somehow just never made sense. Not to me. It wasn't really even germane.

 

[Maxperson]

Beyond that, if Pemerton says that another form of agency exists, which is expressed in terms of the players being able to choose what the 'direction of play' is (or at least have a lot of input on that in a direct sense, like introducing new elements to scenes such as secret doors) then that is something that isn't covered by the definition of agency you are using.

Why does it matter if it's covered by the agency that we are using? His agency doesn't cover things that our agency covers, and that doesn't matter, either. We are playing different games, so why try to compare apples and oranges?

Is it really all that hard to see what Pemerton then means when he says there's a 'greater agency'?

You can't get any higher than 100%, so it's not possible for his to be greater than mine. It's just different.

Beyond that he just pointed out what I said here, that your definition of agency really just describes RPGs IN GENERAL, that all of them must have this characteristic to be even worth discussing, so why do we need to spend time on that really?

Except that it doesn't describe RPGs in general, since RPGs can be played in a manner that reduces or eliminates the standard definition of agency that I am using.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, dramatically, what is the difference between "I search these 3 places" and "I search these 17 places", except one is a lot quicker and to the point. Chances are, if there's anything to be found, it will simply be found when the search progresses to that point, which it INEVITABLY will if the PCs are in a search mode (why wouldn't they search thoroughly). From a narrative standpoint, failure is not interesting in these types of situation, as a rule. If there's a time constraint, or a hazard, then I'd emphasize that over the particulars of which thing was searched in a list of things (IE make a check to search quickly enough to find X before Y happens, or make a check to perceive the hazard, then get the 'stuff').

In the dusty study scene I narrated a page or three back I'd want a lot more specific detail on what the PCs are doing it and how; and in what sequence if not simultaneously.

Why's that, you ask? Because the room has a hidden-in-plain-sight Hazard (the dust, quite flammable if stirred up and then a flame is put to it) and a resulting fire could damage or destroy various key elements in the room, not least of which might be the very map they seek should it happen to be exposed if-when the room goes up.

Further, with a Hazard like this I-as-DM should place the map ahead of time such that - for continuity purposes; if it wasn't important they wouldn't be looking fo rit - it's in a safer location (e.g. inside the box on the desk) should the room catch fire. But I can't, and thus there's the risk of someone successfully searching the papers on the desk and finding the map there just as someone else lights a torch and *woof!*. (though being the RBDM I am I'd probably have the map be one of the dust-covered papers on the desk, vulnerable to any dust fire the party may unintentionally trigger)

Lanefan

 

[Bedrockgames]

OK, I think its 'freedom', yes, but so is being supplied with oxygen, yet we wouldn't say that being so supplied is the same as being totally free. More to the point, EVERYONE has your form of agency in all but the most utterly degenerate of RPGing experiences, and I think we all agree it is pointless to talk about games where 'rocks fall and you die'.

I disagree. I do a lot of sandbox style play, where freedom to explore and interact is one of the prime goals. I've played in a lot of d20 and pathfinder campaigns where this simply isn't the concern (the focus in those when I played in them was more on things like an adventure path, or d20s adventures designed around Challenge Ratings patterns (i.e. Encounter 1 is CR x, Entounter to is CR Y,). Not saying they are all like this. And I can't speak to the current situation in 5E. But there are definitely greater and lesser degrees of freedom afforded to player characters in different adventure structures and play styles. Heck sometimes I don't want to have player agency be big thing. Right now in one of my campaigns I am doing a monster-of-the-week style adventure because I didn't wanted something more focused (and that resulted in less player agency). But most of my campaigns involve letting the players freely explore an open world, and I find this isn't the most common way to run the game (it is currently more popular than it has been, but it isn't the predominate style I see at other tables). Not knocking other styles either.

 

[Bedrockgames]

.

So, I agree that there is a freedom to play your character, but I think its also clear that if the GM puts the character in a cage and no actions are feasible, that this freedom is then meaningless, right? So there ARE degrees of agency, its not just 'all the same', right?

Beyond that, if Pemerton says that another form of agency exists, which is expressed in terms of the players being able to choose what the 'direction of play' is (or at least have a lot of input on that in a direct sense, like introducing new elements to scenes such as secret doors) then that is something that isn't covered by the definition of agency you are using.

Is it really all that hard to see what Pemerton then means when he says there's a 'greater agency'? Beyond that he just pointed out what I said here, that your definition of agency really just describes RPGs IN GENERAL, that all of them must have this characteristic to be even worth discussing, so why do we need to spend time on that really?

Max's notion that one 'balances the other' somehow just never made sense. Not to me. It wasn't really even germane.

As I said before, they don't all have this characteristic. I've played in plenty of RPGs where I don't experience the agency I am talking about in an open sandbox or character driven situational adventure. In a lot of the 3E campaigns I played in, I felt tethered to a series of planned encounters. I could have been a jerk and walked off that path, but it was always obvious to me if that happened, the GM was not ready for it. Again, you guys are using terminology to establish one style of play as better than another. This isn't unique here. I've seen people make similar arguments in favor of sandbox play. I think that kind of argumentation is unproductive and never results in people opening their minds (seriously do you think arguing that you basically have more freedom than us in your approach is going to warm us up to your play style?). There are people on the internet who will argue that Pemerton's style isn't even roleplaying (and they will argue well, in a way that I would honestly find difficult to refute). But these kinds of perscriptive definitional or essential definitional, rather than descriptive definitional, are not a solid basis for analyzing or discussing hobby activity (where we really need to be describing how people use a term). And I am sorry to use that kind of terminology. I really don't like that form of argumentation, but I just don't know how to phrase what I am trying to say here otherwise.

I don't question that peterson's agency is something he genuinely finds useful and experiences. What I object to is him positioning his Agency as somehow greater than the freedom I experience in sandbox. Personally, as a player, in games like the ones he is describing (which I have played in), I don't feel the sense of freedom I get in a true sandbox. That said, I don't think my approach offers greater agency either. I think they are both forms of agency. And how much liberation you find in them is going to largely depend on what interests you as a gamer.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't question that peterson's agency is something he genuinely finds useful and experiences. What I object to is him positioning his Agency as somehow greater than the freedom I experience in sandbox. Personally, as a player, in games like the ones he is describing (which I have played in), I don't feel the sense of freedom I get in a true sandbox. That said, I don't think my approach offers greater agency either. I think they are both forms of agency. And how much liberation you find in them is going to largely depend on what interests you as a gamer.

As I mentioned in prior posts, it can't be greater since our agency is at 100% in the sandbox games that we run. It has been argued that their agency has our agency PLUS theirs, which makes it greater. However, that's a false claim. Their method doesn't allow players to declare actions for their PCs that doesn't move the story forward towards one of their formal or informal goals. They self-limit what actions they are allowed to take for their PCs, which means that their agency of the type we run is limited. Then they add their new agency in which brings their total back to 100%. Further, some Story Now DMs here have said that they would not allow actions that are contrary to the Story Now conventions, so the limitation is not only self-chosen by the players, but it's reinforced by the DM. Players in Story Now games lack full agency of the type we use.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As I said before, it can't be greater since our agency is at 100% in the sandbox games that we run. It has been argued that their agency has our agency PLUS theirs, which makes it greater. However, that's a false claim. Their method doesn't allow players to declare actions for their PCs that doesn't move the story forward towards one of their formal or informal goals. They self-limit what actions they are allowed to take for their PCs, which means that their agency of the type we run is limited. Then they add their new agency in which brings their total back to 100%. Further, some Story Now DMs here have said that they would not allow actions that are contrary to the Story Now conventions, so the limitation is not only self-chosen by the players, but it's reinforced by the DM. Players in Story Now games lack full agency of the type we use.

The focus is totally different though. They are talking about the freedom to take the character in a direction that carved out story. We are talking about the freedom to explore and do what you want. We are talking about pretty subjective uses of terminology here. What I would say concretely is I think most times I see people speak of agency, they are using it as you and I understand it.