What is *worldbuilding* for?

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?



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



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.

Suffice it to say we will have to agree to disagree. I think your choice of terminology was made for rhetorical purposes, and that this is just not the case.

I'll even grant [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] an edge case kind of concession about his 'case 2' (there's a shade of difference between a character who's in doubt about pretend 'reality', and a player who's in doubt about a die coming up 12+). I think its a pretty razor thin sort of territory to stand on, but that's really it. Beyond that you don't get Less from Story Now, in ANY respect. Not unless you have some sort of bad thing going at your table.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yes, I got the whole dust thing, so dice for it! I mean, its effectively arbitrary where people search. Or have it work like if they check the first 'distinction' in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s list, that's OK, but each one stirs up MORE dust, so if you have to get to #3, and you used fire for your light source, then kaboom! I don't see a need for 17 things to be fully described.

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

Well, sure you can, if that's the consideration, then the Box is a distinction, which Pemerton mentioned as an option IIRC. Again, I don't see how some long list of things in the room helps you here. I subscribe to the theory of "one, two, many, too many" being the dramatic version of number theory...

I mean, if it was an enumeration of a fantastical dragon horde, then that would be one thing, it could be FUN to just reel off a huge list of crazy stuff, for color purposes mainly. This is clearly not that kind of case.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Right, the kind of 'math' [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is doing is simply meaningless.

Frankly I don't feel particularly interested in being argumentative WRT your statements about sandboxes. I think they are less 'free and open' than people like to admit, but we could wander around in that swamp forever and its plain you're no more eager to engage in that debate than I am I'm sure equivalent statements could be made about Story Now games, though I think, myself, its hard to get more open than "player, tell me what you want to do and I'll feed you that storyline". hehe.

 

[Maxperson]

When he says that a game plays like a Choose Your Own Adventure book, he isn't saying that all choices available to players in that game are limited. He's saying that choices available to players in that game are limited with respect to the sort of fiction that can result from them.

He's saying that you only have a few options to pick from and then you get to see what is written for you with no possibility of changing anything, because that's what a Choose Your Own Adventure book is. If he meant anything else, he needs to get his terms straight.

 

[Maxperson]

Suffice it to say we will have to agree to disagree. I think your choice of terminology was made for rhetorical purposes, and that this is just not the case.

I'll even grant [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] an edge case kind of concession about his 'case 2' (there's a shade of difference between a character who's in doubt about pretend 'reality', and a player who's in doubt about a die coming up 12+). I think its a pretty razor thin sort of territory to stand on, but that's really it. Beyond that you don't get Less from Story Now, in ANY respect. Not unless you have some sort of bad thing going at your table.

You'll have to explain to me how you get "less" from "equal". I'm not claiming Story Now has less.

Right, the kind of 'math' @Maxperson is doing is simply meaningless.

And I'm not doing any math.

 

[Aldarc]

???? I seriously don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion from what I said, and I do not, for the life of my, understand why you phrase it in this way.

Not sure why you felt obligated to make two separate posts from the same quote. Oh well.

I simply took your language of religious conversion and "if people only said this" but from a different angle such that the religious fervor would still be there regardless of whether someone changed their language. I thought it was obvious.

I am happy to have a real conversation with people about differences in gaming. But I am also experienced enough in life to know when people are engaged in bad-faith arguments and just trying to get their style to the top of a hierarchy. If there is something questionable about my style of play that demands to be talked about, it can be done without undermining the language I use to describe. I am always skeptical of linguistic based arguments for this reason (whether they are coming from people who advocate styles of play I enjoy, or people who are hostile to styles of play I enjoy).

Being curious about what motivates other styles of play is a good thing. Fighting this endless play style war to land the killing blow against style X, in favor of style Y, is pointless.

I would say that if you believe that Pemerton is arguing in bad faith, then you may want to reexamine your own "good faith" in this discussion.

 

[Sadras]

Frankly I don't feel particularly interested in being argumentative WRT your statements about sandboxes. I think they are less 'free and open' than people like to admit, but we could wander around in that swamp forever and its plain you're no more eager to engage in that debate than I am I'm sure equivalent statements could be made about Story Now games, though I think, myself, its hard to get more open than "player, tell me what you want to do and I'll feed you that storyline". hehe.

I believe (and I have no stats to back this statement) that the majority of us play a combination of both when given the opportunity by the players*.
Many tables run the traditional combo Sandbox-Railroad and not a strict one or another, I feel Story Now also emerges in general play as players' interests start becoming increasingly more important in a campaign.
Maybe I'm self-reflecting too much, but I don't think so based on what I have read on Enworld.

*requires players' input to run Story Now arcs

 

[pemerton]

After you've completed a classic dungeon crawl, those of you who survived could recount the narrative of it. If that narrative actually made a good story, you might very well be able to tell a similar story using an entirely different, more narrative-oriented system.

Sure. But when I talk about whether or not a system supports classic dungeon-crawling, I'm not talking about it's capacity to generate a certain sort of imagined series of happenings. I'm talking about the actual play experience it will deliver.

To take an even more stark contrast - sitting around and telling imaginary war stories, even really gritty ones, isn't the same as playing Advanced Squad Leader.

 

[pemerton]

I didn't take "agency." The definition I use is the standard definition.

<snip>

it isn't defined as playing the game at all. It's defined as having control over your PC's actions, which you can lose while still playing the game. Railroad anyone?

How can a player in a RPG, at one and the same time, be playing the game/I] and yet not have control over the declaration of actions for his/her PC? I don't know what you have in mind.

Players like to be able to control the actions of their PCs and generally dislike DMs taking that control away through railroading.

If the GM is doing what you describe as railroading - ie declaring actions for the players (I think that's what you mean?) - then what are the players doing? They don't seem to be playing.

The standard definition of agency is the player having control over his PC's actions. My players have complete control over their PCs actions, so it doesn't get any higher.

This doesn't change the fact that there is something that I care about in RPGing, that isn't a feature of your games. For some reason it angers you that I call it agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction. But whatever label I gave to it, your game still - by your own account - would not exhibit it.

 

[pemerton]

But so are his games, the difference is that his game is limited with respect to the sort of fiction that can result based on strict adherence to genre, theme, player concerns, etc... right?

The limitations on player agency over the content of the shared fiction in Story Now gaming are the genre considerations, themes, and other concerns/priorities introduced by the players themselves? I don't get that.

Edited to add: Those are examples of the players exercising control/agency over the content of the fiction, not the other way around!

I can only agree with what [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has said. I simply don't see how getting to contribute to fiction that involves the stuff one wants, and addresses the thematic concerns one has signalled one cares about, can count as a limit on one's agency. It's an expression of it!

(Also: I've made this same point upthread; and so has [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION].)