What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Aldarc]

I had a similar experience with many of the mechanics in 2nd edition.

Again, this stuff is totally subjective. But definitely try a game on its own terms if you haven't before rendering a judgment (not suggesting you are doing this AA, just see a lot of people form judgments based on what other posters say rather than their own experience in play).

Neat. From someone who came to D&D at the outset of 3E, this was an interesting read. How does this compare with other games? Are there skill systems or such that you enjoy or prefer?

 

[Campbell]

Sorry for disappearing. Been in the middle of a career transition while ramping up my training regimen.

Here is my basic contention: The different expectations, culture of play, and specific play techniques in utilized in game like Sorcerer provides an experience that does not easily arise when playing modern Dungeons and Dragons. The same is true for Moldvay B/X. although modern D&D can come closer there. I am also contending that mainstream games have a highly specific culture of play, expectations, and set of play techniques that most of do not normally look at with a critical lens because they represent the default of what most of us consider a role playing game to be. This is even seen in when [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] criticizes indie games from the prism of that culture. It's all about the experience the GM provides and satisfying individual kicks as seen through the prism of Robin Laws' Player Types. Story as seen as something the GM provides.

Here's why I find this analysis flawed: It is done with zero reference to basic features of the culture of play that makes Sorcerer the game that it is. When I play Sorcerer I am not looking to the GM to provide me with an experience or a story. We are all exploring these characters together. I am not just invested in my character. I am also invested in what everyone else brings to the table, the definition of Humanity we worked on together, and finding out how human our characters are. I would be very interested in going into more detail about this culture of play if there is real interest.

Note: I never meant to imply that mainstream games were less fun than OSR and Indie games. I only meant to convey that they are not somehow contained within and represent a narrowing of the basic experience of playing a role playing game. Difference of kind. Not a narrowing of experience.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Neat. From someone who came to D&D at the outset of 3E, this was an interesting read. How does this compare with other games? Are there skill systems or such that you enjoy or prefer?

Mostly I play my own system now (and it does have skills, though I use them somewhat different than most people). I think I just like lighter skill systems and I find I prefer skill systems that interfere the least with RP or environmental interaction. That said, skills are popular with most players I game with, and I've learned to adapt how I use them to get the best result for my campaigns. Generally, since a large number of systems do have things that could potentially be used as buttons or interfere with RP/exploration, I use them as a fail safe. I ask for rolls when it is unclear to me what the outcome of something would be. If a player says "I pull the rock out and look behind it" I don't ask for a Detect roll, for example. If they have high ranks in something like Command, and say something that would make a new recruit quake in his boots, I don't ask for a roll. I usually ask for rolls when the results are hard to gauge, when I think a highly aware person should get a passive roll to see/sense something, or when there is a disparity between what the player wants to do, and what their character is realistically capable of doing.

Also I've just taken to ignoring skills more as a requirement to do something. I am a lot more interested in what the character should be able to do. If a player character has been tending horses for the past six months, I don't care if he or she doesn't have a relevant skill rank, I'll let them use the next most appropriate skill in the list, or just simply let them do what they are trying to do if it sounds reasonable.

Ultimately what I want to avoid is skills feeling like 'buttons' in play. If players are investigating a murder, I much prefer that they experience the solving of the crime directly, not that their skills simulate them solving the crime. So it is a lot more important to me that the player feels like they are there, finding the clues, asking the questions, and putting the evidence together, than rolling skills in a way that removes them from the direct experience of the investigation.

 

[Aldarc]

Mostly I play my own system now (and it does have skills, though I use them somewhat different than most people).

Here is your moment to plug and self-promote: is there a particular game or setting of yours that best demonstrates this skill system in action?

I think I just like lighter skill systems and I find I prefer skill systems that interfere the least with RP or environmental interaction.

Are you familiar with Index Card RPG? It is essentially a stripped down basic version of d20 D&D. It forgoes a skill system, but instead just uses your attribute bonus for ability checks. Some tasks essentially have Hit Points, rated in Hearts (1 Heart = 10 HP) that you are trying to overcome through your effort.

So for example, your party encounters an arcane script on a dungeon wall that you want to decipher. It has 1 Heart and a difficulty "to hit" of 15. You're a pretty smart mage, and you have a 2 Intelligence. So you make an Intelligence check with a +2 (Intelligence) to decipher the script. You succeed with an adjusted 17. But then you roll your Effort die, maybe in this case 1d4 + 1. You roll and get a 2 on the die. So after your first round of trying to decipher the script, you have 7 more "HP" to go before you can fully decipher it. But you need to hurry because the room is quickly filling up with poisonous gas.

Also I've just taken to ignoring skills more as a requirement to do something. I am a lot more interested in what the character should be able to do.

Much the same, and I think that there is a current trend in games with a similar attitude.

Ultimately what I want to avoid is skills feeling like 'buttons' in play.

From what I have seen with myself and others coming from D&D 3-5e to other games, this can be a hard habit to unlearn.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Definitely not interested in dying on the "principled and disciplined GMing" hill if it isn't useful as a term to delineate it from classic "GMing by fiat." "System-constrained GMing?" That just rolls off the tongue. Should catch like wildfire.

Let me rewrite the analogy to an even crappier one so we can focus on the crappiness of my analogies!

On crappy analogies that serve only to distract the conversation:

Instead of the pitcher and the coach, here is one; an artist and a show curator.

In the first instance, the curator says "create something that is moving."

In the second instance, the curator gives constraints:

1) Oil on canvas

2) Grays and muted greens w/ a single bright color

3) Convey the metamorphosis of profound loss

On Blades GMing: I'm thinking broadly here (as in informing to one degree, even if slightly, each moment of play). I'm thinking of the aspects of the GMing ethos which will guide and constrain which differentiate it from other games' GMing ethos (and therefore the experience in play for both the GM and the players). Some of these are extremely controversial (as they have been brought up many time in various forms). For instance:

At the apex, we have

Play to find out what happens (and all the suite of actions, principles, and "don't do's" that play exactly into this...of which there are tons...not going to name them all as there are too many)

Below that, but related we have things like

Ask Questions (and use the answers)

Telegraph trouble before it strikes (but follow through)

Be aware of potential fiction vs. established fiction (also a part of play to find out what happens, but I wanted to put this separately)

Keep the meta channel open

Don't block

Don't hold back on what they earn

Don't say no (go with no Effect and let them bargain the Effect up and/or Offer a Devil's Bargain)

There is a lot of other stuff including things that a lot of GMs on here (who are exclusively used to trad games) would say is "over"empowering (such as "Cut to the Action" or "Don't Get Caught Up In Minutae" - D&D 4e certainly got killed for its iteration of this indie axiom - "Skip the gate guards and get to the fun!"), but those above are the kinds of things I have in mind that are constraints or "constraining guidance." Having those subtly or significantly inform each moment of play is a (given the current representation on ENWorld...unwelcome) paradigm shift for GMs who are used to the (more-or-less) all-encompassing authority/latitude (in discretion on the nature/trajectory of the fiction, on rulings, and their hefty role in action resolution) that is afforded to them in various trad games.

Given that last sentence alone, I feel like constraint vs latitude/authority has to be the axis where we differentiate GMing in games like Blades vs a game like (say) D&D 5e.

Yes? No? Another axis?

I agree with this last point, that the GMing necessary to achieve the system goals is different, and that Blades certainly constrains mechanically the GM's role vs 5e. I, however, don't agree that the term 'principled and disciplined GMing' applies MORE to Blades than 5e. If you define 'principled and disciplined' as 'follows the advice and constrains within the game' then there's tons' of 5e GMs that fit that bill, but that really doesn't seem to hit the mark you're trying to set. I think, instead, that the mark you're hitting is 'constrained GMing'. Now, to be perfectly clear, I think this is great. I love Blades, and I follow the advice, because it does work to serve up what it says on the tin. But, I also follow some openly presented and core guiding principles when I run 5e, which also act to serve up the experience I'm going for. I find it distressing that my GMing in Blades would be referred to as 'principled and disciplined' but my GMing in D&D would be called 'fiat' by your preferred lexicon. Especially since, as I look at it, I use fiat in Blades quite a bit, and I use discipline and principle when I run 5e.

That's the issue I have -- the setting of terms in ways that privileges some games in positive terms and disadvantages others in negative terms when the actual terms are present in both.

I do not disagree, at all, that there are very different GMing ethoses present between 5e and Blades (or many other games) and that those ethoses result in very different responsibilities and authorities in those games, some mechanically enforced, some just guidelines for play. And, I think it's important to stress the impacts those kinds of constraints can have on play. I'm not denying the impact or difference these ethoses have -- it's really very different and creates a different feel altogether. I also enjoy discussing those differences. I don't like when the terms become loaded to the point of 'my game features principled and disciplined GMing and yours doesn't because it has too much GM fiat'. I find that antagonistic, not helpful. And I play both sides of the fence, so it's not knee-jerk defensiveness of D&D. If you ask me, the lack of GM ethos in D&D results in wildly divergent experiences from table to table. I've had good luck (or rather, active curation), but I see bad games as often discussed here all the time. I get the desire to play in a game where the player has mechanically enforced power to direct the game and the DM is limited in how they can interact with player provided direction. I do get it. I even like those games. But, that limitation doesn't, in my book, adhere to the GM suddenly becoming more principled or disciplined so much as the system specifically limits the GM's ability to do anything outside of their narrow responsibilities. The GM advice in Blades, as a point of interest, can be applied as guidance for players with very little changing needed. And that's because the GM is really just another player in Blades with a different set of responsibilities to the players. The players have a ton of responsibility in Blades as well.

---

Just an amusing aside as an ironic thought came to me. Despite the above (disempowering or constraining aspects of Blades GMing), the game is significantly more lethal/"good guys" don't win-ey (in bad ways) than any D&D that has ever been conceived. And we often see player empowerment/GM "disempowerment" as an "EZMode" epithet.

Oh, I strongly disagree on this. Strongly. Blades isn't more lethal, as a system, at all. It can be as lethal or more lethal, but that's so individual game dependent that it's useless to draw a general statement. I've certainly played in D&D where it was astoundingly, brutally, casually more lethal than my Blades game, where I've hurt the PCs and hurt them, but none have died yet.

Now, if you mean 'PCs are punished harshly but not killed' then, yeah, my Blades game definitely does that more than I've seen in most D&D.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Here is your moment to plug and self-promote: is there a particular game or setting of yours that best demonstrates this skill system in action?

I still use a full list of skills, but it is more in how I approach them, than in the skills themselves. The most recent version of my game is Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate. Most of what I talk about is in the advice on using skills section. For me the key is not having skills feel like buttons in play. But the game is skill-based, so there are skills in it. I've also been experimenting with lighter versions lately.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Are you familiar with Index Card RPG? It is essentially a stripped down basic version of d20 D&D. It forgoes a skill system, but instead just uses your attribute bonus for ability checks. Some tasks essentially have Hit Points, rated in Hearts (1 Heart = 10 HP) that you are trying to overcome through your effort.

I haven't played it, but will make a point of checking it out.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]

Going to work backwards.

1) I’m talking about the play default.

2) I’m talking about players skilled in the system.

3) What I’m saying with respect to Blades vs D&D is probably more perceived “loss condition”, “actual loss condition”, and the general brutality of play.

With respect to the combination of 1 and 2 above, skilled D&D players are going to overwhelm the default adventuring day and/or encounter budget and/or dungeon delve paradigm, regardless of system. Skilled play produces characters, teamwork, a developed knowledge base, and rote power plays (be it combat, exploration/divination/investigation, or social) that will overwhelm the systems defsult parameters/expectations.

As such, the ability to avoid loss conditions, punitive character fallout, or punitive story fallout becomes extreme. So nobs are turned, buttons are pushed, levers are pulled, stops are pulled out to recalibrate.

With Blades, even skilled players are almost surely to be dealing with at least 1 Trauma level after maybe 4 Scores (sometimes less) at the systrm’s default. Forget Harm (which they very likely may be dealing with a Harm 1 or 2, maybe a couple 1s at that point), forget relationship fallout, forget Incarceration and an ass whooping . You tell your average D&D player that they have this permanent, negative (but helpful and harmful simultaneously system-wise, so both positive and negative feedback) behavioral trait and that is a “loss condition” for a lot of players. Couple that with all the other bad stuff that is invariably going to happen to your character (both in the fiction and mechanically), that singular characters get retired (not just killed, but retired or walked away from due to damage accrued) at a rate that your average D&D player would blanch at.

So that is what I was going for (I think perhaps you agree given your last paragraph?).

As to the stuff at the top:

I’m perfectly fine with “(system-)constrained GMing.” I would include system in there because I’m not sure that is implied to your average RPG conversant (first question may be “by what?”).

As for “fiat GMing”, I’m absolutely fine with an alternative. I just find that folks on ENWorld typically connote “unconstrained authority” over the gamestate and over the disposition of play (with caveats of distasteful behavior and abject malfeasance of course) as SOP for the discipline of GMing. And there is plenty of support for that position with various iterations of Rule 0, “lead storyteller”, “sole arbiter/referee”, “GM’s game/setting”, and the other aspects of system which require heavy GM mediation (and authorize it).

Tony uses “empowered GMing.” I’m not sure that carries any sort of differentiating accuracy (in fact, I personally feel less empowered as a system piles mental overhead and increased resolution mechanics mediation upon me). So what is a descriptor that differentiates upon the spectrum of authority/latitude/constraint? “Apex latitude GMing.” That sounds so terrible that it just_might_work... (not really).

 

[Ovinomancer]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]

Going to work backwards.

1) I’m talking about the play default.

2) I’m talking about players skilled in the system.

3) What I’m saying with respect to Blades vs D&D is probably more perceived “loss condition”, “actual loss condition”, and the general brutality of play.

With respect to the combination of 1 and 2 above, skilled D&D players are going to overwhelm the default adventuring day and/or encounter budget and/or dungeon delve paradigm, regardless of system. Skilled play produces characters, teamwork, a developed knowledge base, and rote power plays (be it combat, exploration/divination/investigation, or social) that will overwhelm the systems defsult parameters/expectations.

As such, the ability to avoid loss conditions, punitive character fallout, or punitive story fallout becomes extreme. So nobs are turned, buttons are pushed, levers are pulled, stops are pulled out to recalibrate.

With Blades, even skilled players are almost surely to be dealing with at least 1 Trauma level after maybe 4 Scores (sometimes less) at the systrm’s default. Forget Harm (which they very likely may be dealing with a Harm 1 or 2, maybe a couple 1s at that point), forget relationship fallout, forget Incarceration and an ass whooping . You tell your average D&D player that they have this permanent, negative (but helpful and harmful simultaneously system-wise, so both positive and negative feedback) behavioral trait and that is a “loss condition” for a lot of players. Couple that with all the other bad stuff that is invariably going to happen to your character (both in the fiction and mechanically), that singular characters get retired (not just killed, but retired or walked away from due to damage accrued) at a rate that your average D&D player would blanch at.

So that is what I was going for (I think perhaps you agree given your last paragraph?).

I was. Painful outcomes in Blades is more common than in D&D. I think this is because death is the default painful outcome in most D&D. It doesn't have to be, but that involves coloring in the blank areas of the game system.

As to the stuff at the top:

I’m perfectly fine with “(system-)constrained GMing.” I would include system in there because I’m not sure that is implied to your average RPG conversant (first question may be “by what?”).

As for “fiat GMing”, I’m absolutely fine with an alternative. I just find that folks on ENWorld typically connote “unconstrained authority” over the gamestate and over the disposition of play (with caveats of distasteful behavior and abject malfeasance of course) as SOP for the discipline of GMing. And there is plenty of support for that position with various iterations of Rule 0, “lead storyteller”, “sole arbiter/referee”, “GM’s game/setting”, and the other aspects of system which require heavy GM mediation (and authorize it).

Tony uses “empowered GMing.” I’m not sure that carries any sort of differentiating accuracy (in fact, I personally feel less empowered as a system piles mental overhead and increased resolution mechanics mediation upon me). So what is a descriptor that differentiates upon the spectrum of authority/latitude/constraint? “Apex latitude GMing.” That sounds so terrible that it just_might_work... (not really).

Yes, I can agree that there's not a good, shortform word for the GM authority in D&D. To that end, and as I said above, I'm really not that adverse to GM fiat as a descriptor. I just think it's occasionally worthwhile to look at how our labels may be influencing our opinions. I worry too much, I think.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am also contending that mainstream games have a highly specific culture of play, expectations, and set of play techniques that most of do not normally look at with a critical lens because they represent the default of what most of us consider a role playing game to be.

I'm not trying to brow-beat you into changing your choice of wording, but I'm going to have to work may way through this, every time, because I can't imagine I'll ever be comfortable calling RPGs 'mainstream,' in any sense or context.

What you're talking about is D&D, and I suppose d20, and related/similar games, when they are Played A Certain Way, that being some variation on the ways that folks traditionally settled on to get D&D working for them back in the day. That said Way Of Playing is relatively monolithic, and used by such a large majority that it's relatively un-examined, from within. And, that this de-facto majority constitutes an 'in group,' with indie games - really, any game not D&Dish-enough - on the outside. From which outsider perspective, you are looking in.
A "there's two kinds of gamers..." proposition.

I don't really quite agree with that way of looking at it. Rather, I see the community as having a lot of D&D-only to D&D-primary participants who mostly may, indeed, have the sort of in-group perspective you're positing, and then various much smaller demographics who mostly have also or even do still play D&D, but have much greater exposure to one or more other significantly different games, including some who are very cosmopolitan in that regard (like, I'm guessing, you, pemerton, & manbearcat, just for instances). The D&D-only/primary crowd is by far the largest, since D&D is the only RPG with significant mainstream name recognition (in the actual mainstream of society), so where the majority of would-be gamers start - if they can't stand it, they may not ever find out there's a lot of alternatives, and that's it, they never really join the hobby; if they like it (or learn to live with it, at least), they join the D&D/d20-centric majority ('mainstream' in your terminology, I'd almost have to say cult, since we're talking the core of a fringe-sub-culture that has endured decades of relative obscurity prior to the current come-back), if not, they go looking for other games and fall into admiration of one or a few of them settling into a 'niche,' or eventually become more cosmopolitan.

Here is my basic contention: The different expectations, culture of play, and specific play techniques in utilized in game like Sorcerer provides an experience that does not easily arise when playing modern Dungeons and Dragons. The same is true for Moldvay B/X. although modern D&D can come closer there. This is even seen in when Imaro criticizes indie games from the prism of that culture. It's all about the experience the GM provides and satisfying individual kicks as seen through the prism of Robin Laws' Player Types. Story as seen as something the GM provides.

Well, The DM Provides.

I don't much care for the Forge conclusion that games have to somehow force everyone who uses them to Play A Certain Way or else the game is 'incoherent,' nor that a game that a game having chosen an agenda to 'support' must do so by blocking or punishing others.
Frankly, I think a game could do well to be fairly open to being played in a variety of different ways, and that a well-designed game that's robustly balanced will naturally tend that way...

Here's why I find this analysis flawed: It is done with zero reference to basic features of the culture of play that makes Sorcerer the game that it is. When I play Sorcerer I am not looking to the GM to provide me with an experience or a story. We are all exploring these characters together. I am not just invested in my character. I am also invested in what everyone else brings to the table, the definition of Humanity we worked on together, and finding out how human our characters are. I would be very interested in going into more detail about this culture of play if there is real interest.

Note: I never meant to imply that mainstream games were less fun than OSR and Indie games.

I think most of us would have less fun with mainstream games - like monopoly, for instance. ;P

Though, seriously, you don't need to mean to imply it in a comparison like that, the implication is going to be seen by & antagonize anyone even a little defensive about their place (of 'privilege' even) in the hobby's dominant segment.

I only meant to convey that they are not somehow contained within and represent a narrowing of the basic experience of playing a role playing game. Difference of kind. Not a narrowing of experience.

If we're drawing set diagrams, there's a 'universe' of people and an itty-bitty circle for the set of people who actually play TTRPGs. It's heavily overlapped by larger circles - science fiction fans, people you read comic books, fans of My Little Pony, MMO gamers, CCG Gamers, etc. It's entirely contained in the broader 'Gamer' set, even though there are some aberrant individuals who play TTRPGs without ever touching a video game, let alone play poker for money....

While the actual mainstream largely thinks "D&D" is the whole hobby, we know that TTRPGs are a whole category with many quite different games. I think it's more important that any two given RPGs (even if one of them will almost always be D&D), are both TTRPGs, and overlap in the experience they provide, than that they're different in what they provide or how. Though there's certainly value to people realizing there's more out there in the rest of the hobby than they may have yet had personal experience with.

As to the stuff at the top:
I’m perfectly fine with “(system-)constrained GMing.” I would include system in there because I’m not sure that is implied to your average RPG conversant (first question may be “by what?”).
As for “fiat GMing”, I’m absolutely fine with an alternative.

How 'bout "DMing" and you can have "GMing"

I just find that folks on ENWorld typically connote “unconstrained authority” over the gamestate and over the disposition of play (with caveats of distasteful behavior and abject malfeasance of course) as SOP for the discipline of GMing. And there is plenty of support for that position with various iterations of Rule 0, “lead storyteller”, “sole arbiter/referee”, “GM’s game/setting”, and the other aspects of system which require heavy GM mediation (and authorize it). Tony uses “empowered GMing.” I’m not sure that carries any sort of differentiating accuracy

It's just what the current ed of D&D is calling the 'Golden Rule'/'Rule 0'/Illusionism/the-Killer-to-Monty-Haul spectrum of DM Disorders/Variants/House-Rules/Improv/Covert-Freestyle-RP/etc. "DM Empowerment."

And I'm consciously using DM rather than GM, because there's plenty of games that don't count on the reality that the GM can do whatever he wants, but actually try to present workable systems, even if they might not always be used.

(in fact, I personally feel less empowered as a system piles mental overhead and increased resolution mechanics mediation upon me). So what is a descriptor that differentiates upon the spectrum of authority/latitude/constraint? “Apex latitude GMing.” That sounds so terrible that it just_might_work... (not really).

Just as the 5e Fighter's "Best at fighting" is 'best' in the Advertising Claim sense of "no alternative has been conclusively proven to be strictly better," DM 'Empowerment' is 'Empowering' in the management-fad sense, of giving you more responsibility, maybe a snazzier title, but no additional authority or pay. ;P