What is *worldbuilding* for?

[AbdulAlhazred]

And this gets right back to the map-in-the-castle example.

If for whatever reason finding this map is a big deal, then having it turn up on the first successful search roll* (as a player-driven system would resolve the search-the-room-for-the-map action declaration) gives it away too cheaply simply through resolution mechanics. In a DM-driven system she can, if desired, put the map behind various traps and defend it with various opponents**, knowing all the while where it is and what obstacles the PCs will have to either overcome or bypass in order to get it.

* - this also means the DM can't have the map's specific location be somehow defended, as until it is found it doesn't have a specific location.
** - e.g. if it's in a breadbox in the kitchen the breadbox could be lethally trapped, and a phantom snake could be in there with the map to defend it, and the kitchen could be the home of the cook's fearsome ghost; meanwhile the study could have all kinds of traps, hints, etc. to steer the PCs toward looking there as a diversionary defense of the map's actual location.

IMHO this falls back to the "if you have a bad GM..." (or player) thing. Why would finding the map, if it is going to represent a 'big deal' be too easy? We have no context, so we really cannot say what the map represents, or how hard it was to get to where it is being found. Truthfully, in Story Now you only know things are big deals BECAUSE they're built up so much! Otherwise, who knows? There's no structure to the story that exists in the beginning of the telling. If the map is a big deal it is because a LOT has lead up to it, making it so. If not, then it isn't a big deal. This is one of the things about this type of play, it simply paces itself. It naturally builds to final conclusions. The story, instead of being something premeditated and planned out and drawn up is now not just emergent (because that is likely true of most any decent game) but there is a naturally emergent dramatic structure! Things build. There's a progression. Eventually the conflicts at the center of the story reach a head. They resolve. That is what is REALLY cool.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And as @AbdulAlhazred has pointed out, resting in 5e seems to be about resources rather than pacing. It's true that the GM can use his/her control over "the plot", or framing, to create "story losses" (what AbdulAlhazred calls "plot costs") that the players might risk if they renew their resources - but the risking of story losses for resources doesn't really seem to be a strong or even distinctive form of player agency at all. Not particularly strong, because the bulk of the agency seems to be in the GM's hands; and not distinctive, because a player in a "player-facing" game can often spend a "move" or "turn" trying to establish an augment of some sort rather than actually tackling the situation head-on. (Even if there is no literal action economy, trying to establish the augment is an action that risks failure, which can then be narrated as consequences that consist in the situation getting worse for the PC, which - in terms of fictional content, if not the process of play that generates it - is analogous to the story loss of the GM-driven game.)

Right, in my own system for example: you could trade your inspiration for a surge worth of healing, a daily power recharge, etc. You'd have to justify it in terms of a character trait, but that's often a pretty low bar if whatever you're doing is central to your character.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This just reiterates my point that the issue is not player freedom to make action declarations that are then resolved via the mechanics; but rather that balancing moves is a bigger deal in D&D than in most other RPGs. The concern you raise here isn't about the player's "authorship" role, but about the fact that the move is too powerful relative to other available moves.

(Though personally I'm not sure this is true in a game with fiat secret doors via Passwall.)

Well, D&D lacks any sort of resource or mechanic which would produce that kind of balancing. There's no 'doom pool' or anything like that. So, if you put authorial privilege into a check, then in D&D it is purely a new factor in favor of the player. And since in the archetypal Gygaxian D&D the player and the character are essentially one, you have 'powered up the character' in a sense. This is where the anxiety about 'giving the player power' is coming from. Any player in Gary's basement in 1974 given the ability to make checks to create narrative elements would OF COURSE create ways to 'cheat the maze', because beating the dungeon IS the game! Now, had Gary thought of it, he could have created something like 'plot coupon' or something that came with a balancing factor, it just was a bridge too far from wargaming and not in the cards for the first ever RPG.

Passwall, that is spells, do actually work almost as plot coupons, though they are fairly elegantly wedded to the game world action.

[quite]
Absolutely it can. A combat can be part of a skill challenge (eg defeating the monster generates 1 success). Or a skill challenge can unfold within, or parallel to, a combat.

There is a good recent thread in the <5e editions sub-forum about skill challenges in combat contexts.
[/quote]
Right, there's no clear line in 4e between combat and non-combat. Combat DOES have special rules, but the standard rules still apply (IE SCs and checks in general, see page 42 for example).

By spending time framing situations about slaves and intersecting passages you don't increase the scope for agency. You just spend more time on the stuff that you think is interesting and less time (or delay the arrival at) the stuff the players have flagged as interesting to them.

This takes us back to the point that fiction is imaginary.

From the point of view of "interacting" with fiction, there's no difference between authoring that an (already mentioned) orc is dead, and authoring that an (already mentioned) wall contains a secret door.

You have to introduce other constraints - eg the player's authorship is constrained to things that, in the fiction, might be causal results of his/her PC's actions. I know that plenty of people like such constraints, but RPGs that don't adhere to them aren't in any sense abandoning the idea of "interacting with the fiction", and aren't in any sense more "unrealistic" or "Schroedingerish".

Right, fiction is fiction is fiction. This again goes back to my observations about pacing at the table vs in game narrative. You can assume a vast amount of stuff happened in game and not even talk about it. Heck, there's no reason in principle that you can't skip major, and significant, portions of the character's stories and lives.

If a player WANTS to bring up a certain element at a certain point, then sure, if you elided that whole sequence of events, then they'd have to raise their hand and bring it up, or something. Generally in our games we have pretty much of a consensus about what to elide. 4e provided, in DMG2, a bunch of advice about doing things like vignettes and interludes as tools you can add to the story-telling toolbox in order to get to what you want to play out.

I think the 'realisticness' is a conceit. That's always been my point with the whole issue of causality and its non-existence in RPGs. Every game is fundamentally filled with undecided, and not formally decidable stuff. Its made up, there's no point in worrying about whether it was made up on the spot to be interesting, or all predefined long ago using some complex procedure.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's simply not true, at least not as he described it. Had that arcana check succeeded, that would have been the feather they needed. One roll in a place he plopped them. While it is true that we both would start at the initial stages, only his allowed for the initial stage to also be the final stage. One check is hardly "work".

That is entirely your leap. Just because you have an angel feather doesn't mean you've exorcised a balrog! You could spend another 20 levels going from feather to victory in that fight!

 

[Maxperson]

That is entirely your leap. Just because you have an angel feather doesn't mean you've exorcised a balrog! You could spend another 20 levels going from feather to victory in that fight!

What leap? I didn't say or even imply that it was one roll to successfully get rid of the Balrog. Context is your friend. We were discussing only the first leg of the PCs goals, which was to have the item before he left the city. Therefore, what I say on the matter in CONTEXT only has to do with that first leg, unless I specifically say otherwise. Being plopped down into the bazaar to find the feather which if the roll had been successful, would also have been the final stage of finding the item. It's not a leap at all to describe the situation accurately. It's the simple truth according to how [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been describing his playstyle and that particular game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What leap? I didn't say or even imply that it was one roll to successfully get rid of the Balrog. Context is your friend. We were discussing only the first leg of the PCs goals, which was to have the item before he left the city. Therefore, what I say on the matter in CONTEXT only has to do with that first leg, unless I specifically say otherwise. Being plopped down into the bazaar to find the feather which if the roll had been successful, would also have been the final stage of finding the item. It's not a leap at all to describe the situation accurately. It's the simple truth according to how [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been describing his playstyle and that particular game.

I'm still skeptical that this alone automatically addresses the character's belief. It MIGHT be enough, but there could also be MANY obstacles to getting out of the city with it, even if it proved to be what was desired. And really, is it that big a deal? I mean, the belief stated seemed to be a fairly short-term goal really. I guess the other question being "why would he leave anyway?" I mean, maybe after the whole sequence that was outlined by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] he DID leave, but just the finding of the feather doesn't seem to me to provide the character any narrative reason to do so, and indeed he didn't seem to think it was necessary himself either, though you might argue that was due to the perceived low quality of the feather. Still, had it been a fully potent feather (he passed the check) then wouldn't he have been even MORE motivated to stay in town?

 

[Maxperson]

I'm still skeptical that this alone automatically addresses the character's belief. It MIGHT be enough, but there could also be MANY obstacles to getting out of the city with it, even if it proved to be what was desired.

I'm not sure how you can be skeptical about it. The belief is that he finds the item and gets out of the city. If he finds it immediately and gets out of the city, how is that not addressing the character's belief?

And really, is it that big a deal? I mean, the belief stated seemed to be a fairly short-term goal really.

I don't understand this, either. Specific magic items dealing with powerful demons are usually fairly rare and hard to obtain. I'm basing that on the multitude of DMs I've played under. I don't ever recall the magic item I need for the quest to be handed to me with one successful roll right at the beginning of the campaign.

I guess the other question being "why would he leave anyway?" I mean, maybe after the whole sequence that was outlined by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] he DID leave, but just the finding of the feather doesn't seem to me to provide the character any narrative reason to do so, and indeed he didn't seem to think it was necessary himself either, though you might argue that was due to the perceived low quality of the feather. Still, had it been a fully potent feather (he passed the check) then wouldn't he have been even MORE motivated to stay in town?

I think one of us isn't understanding what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said, and I'm not sure which one of us. My recollection is that the brother was not in the town. If that's true, then there no reason at all for him to stay once he has the item he needs, let alone be more motivated to stay in town.

 

[pemerton]

if the PC's main quest is to free his brother from demonic possession, and during play he encounters a village under attack by troglodytes and decides to put his main quest on hold and stop to help the villagers for a while by rounding up a party and taking the battle to the trogs...sounds like a player-driven side quest to me.

What does during play he encounters a village under attack by troglodytes mean?

These "worlds" aren't real. They're authored - they're fictions.

What you describe is an instance of GM-driven play: the "side quest" is the GM framing the PC (and, thereby, the player) into a situation that does not speak to the interests and concerns that the player has signalled.

Thus, as I said (and as you quoted), [o]sidequest[/I] not a notion that has any purchase in player-driven RPGing"

if the player has a belief for his character such as, "My own personal ambitions are more important the the plight of the downtrodden." Then the DM must introduce such scenes in order to bring that player belief into conflict.

Well then it wouldn't be a "sidequest", would it?

Not every PC needs to always be so focused on its own goals and angst that it ignores the world around it.

There is no world around the PC, except as that "world" is authored.

All you are positing is that the GM should drive this authorship.

And before you say you'd never frame the village scene as it's not important to the PCs' goals, I say why not?

Because I prefer to run a game along the lines of the "standard narrativisitc model" - ie one in which the player-expressed thematic content and dramatic needs are engaged in play.

Why is it so important that we do Y right now rather than next session or the session after that? You're not running to a time limit.

(1) Why don't you spend your sessions all sitting aorund silently for an hour between action declarations? After all, there is no time limit!

(2) There is a time limit - we're all mortal.

(3) I want to spend my play time on the stuff that I enjoy, that delivers the experiences I enjoy in RPGing. I don't need to fill random hours with uninteresting stuff.

I'm mostly trying to point out the agency that players in 'go where the action is' games are missing out on.

<snip>

I'm more getting at the granularity of interactions while adventuring...that every intersecting passage gets described and the party given a choice which way to go, for example, rather than jumping them straight to the 'action' scene in the throne room.

What they're missing out on is having the GM tell them stuff (about intersections, about troglodytes attacking villagers, about slaves being beaten, etc). Ie what they're missing out in is GM-driven framing.

Having the GM tell you stuff isn't exercising agency.

Either way, the players are being denied the opportunity to make a choice. There might be nothing but empty passages...but unless you narrate them the players don't know they exist and thus don't get to choose whether to explore them or not.

Make them make a choice.

<snip>

every time a player has a choice of what her PC does next, that player's agency is increased

Players always have choices. That is not in issue.

Framing the PC into the bazaar, or the reliquary, doesn't reduce choices. It just means that they are choices that bear upon the PC's dramatic needs.

 

[pemerton]

There's no effective difference between the DM obstacle in my style, and you creating the curse obstacle in your via the failed roll. In both instances the players have to overcome an obstacle that the DM put in the way. In both instances the players desires drove that obstacle into being through their desires. In both instances the story moves forward ONLY because of the players, as the DM is just reacting to what the players do.

What counts as effective difference obviously is relative to things that matter to people.

What matters to me is the actual experience of playing the game - at each moment of play, what fiction is the focus of play? where did it come from? why do we care about it?

Given those concerns, the difference between a GM-authored obstacle that must be played through before we get to the thing the player cares about and a GM-authored consequence for a failed check in dealing with the thing the player cares about is vast. The first is GM-driven and verges on a railroad: the player has to jump through the GM's hoops before play actually gets to what s/he wants it to be about. The fact that there might be multiple ways of jumping through the hoops - bribe a guard or visit a sage or whatever - doesn't reduce its railroad-y character. The player still has to play through all this GM-authored stuff before getting to the bit s/he's interested in.

The second is the player being confronted with a situation that speaks to the PC's dramatic need. The player makes choices about that - try to buy it? try to steal it? try to analyse it? - and the results of these choices yield consequences that the GM authors having regard to these same dramatic needs.

the story is driven forward in my game by the players regardless of success. Even in failure, the story moves, albeit in a different direction.

<snip>

Your style doesn't allow for greater player control over the story.

The episode of play I described is about a wizard who is in Hardby, hoping to find an item to help him free his brother from possession haggling over an angel feather, and learning that it is cursed.

The player made the choice that made angel feathers salient (ie the player authored the PC's belief). The player made the choice that might reveal the feather as cursed (ie to read the aura of the feather).

The hypothetical example you put forward involves situations whose content is established by the GM; and where the consequences will also be established by the GM. The payer "drives the story forward" only in the sense that the player declares actions. That is to say, it is a RPG.

Had that arcana check succeeded, that would have been the feather they needed. One roll in a place he plopped them. While it is true that we both would start at the initial stages, only his allowed for the initial stage to also be the final stage. One check is hardly "work".

In both his example and yours, this is much "work" to be done before the player goal is met.

That is entirely your leap. Just because you have an angel feather doesn't mean you've exorcised a balrog! You could spend another 20 levels going from feather to victory in that fight!

What [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] say seems more accurate to me.

Suppose the check succeeds and the PC identifies some useful trait of the feather. He still has to acquire it somehow. He still has to use his Alchemy and Enchanting to work it into some usable form. This would require tools which he currently doesn't have. And he still has to find his brother!

And as I already posted upthread - "work" here is inapt. We're talking about a hobby, a pastime, playing a game. The question isn't whether or not the player has to "work" for anything. It's about whether the focus of the play is on the stuff the player has flagged, or some other stuff the GM wants to play through.

It seems a difference between your style and pemerton's is that where you'd have the players (in character) take the time to figure out how in the game-world to find the information that would lead them to the bazaar, he'd assume the PCs would obtain the correct info and thus jump straight to the bazaar scene.

The game has to start somewhere. A bazaar is barey less traditional than a tavern!

What is significant about the bazaar scene is not that it is a bazaar, but that a peddler is selling an angel feather.

Your way allows the players / PCs to make mistakes, find and follow false leads, or otherwise run into distractions that make the whole thing take longer to play out at the table. His doesn't.

The PC can make mistakes or follow false leads - the feather turned out to be one!

The difference is that the false leads and distractions are not GM-driven material displacing the content that speaks to the PC's dramatic needs - ie the material that affirms player agency over the content of the shared fiction.

 

[Lanefan]

What does during play he encounters a village under attack by troglodytes mean?

These "worlds" aren't real. They're authored - they're fictions.

To us, yes. To the PCs, no - they're the reality the PCs have to operate in.

What you describe is an instance of GM-driven play: the "side quest" is the GM framing the PC (and, thereby, the player) into a situation that does not speak to the interests and concerns that the player has signalled.

Thus, as I said (and as you quoted), [o]sidequest[/I] not a notion that has any purchase in player-driven RPGing"

The players aren't allowed to side-quest themselves?

They can't, if they're never given the chance to...but they can, and sometimes will, if the chance is there. Nothing wrong with that.

There is no world around the PC, except as that "world" is authored.

It is unbelievably frustrating that you keep making this ridiculous claim that "there is no world around the PCs". If there isn't, then what are the PCs operating in and-or interacting with in the fiction? An endless empty void?

All you are positing is that the GM should drive this authorship.

Of course she should. It's her job, as I've been saying the whole time.

Because I prefer to run a game along the lines of the "standard narrativisitc model" - ie one in which the player-expressed thematic content and dramatic needs are engaged in play.

What they're missing out on is having the GM tell them stuff (about intersections, about troglodytes attacking villagers, about slaves being beaten, etc). Ie what they're missing out in is GM-driven framing.

At the same time as my player-expressed thematic content and dramatic needs ("Dramatic needs"? Really?) are being engaged in play, as a natural outgrowth of said engagement I also want to explore the game world my PC is in and at least see what's going by as my story goes along. I want to know much more about the world than merely the trivialities affecting my PC right now, if for no other reason than this knowledge allows me to make better choices as a player/PC. Who knows, maybe I'll completely chuck my original goals and beliefs if something more engaging comes along, or maybe I'll put them on hold and get back to them later.

Having the GM tell you stuff isn't exercising agency.

Not by your definition, perhaps. But you're using a rather narrow definition of 'agency' here, which excludes the agency of choice within the fiction.

(1) Why don't you spend your sessions all sitting aorund silently for an hour between action declarations? After all, there is no time limit!

Silently, no; but sometimes a hockey or politics debate will break out between one round and the next - it happens...

(2) There is a time limit - we're all mortal.

Yes, and "the rest of my life" is my expectation for how long any campaign I'm playing or DMing will potentially last. If someone's trying to sell me on a campaign and says they only expect it'll last 6 months to a year I'll say why bother - by that point you should just nicely be getting started.

(3) I want to spend my play time on the stuff that I enjoy, that delivers the experiences I enjoy in RPGing. I don't need to fill random hours with uninteresting stuff.

Nor does anyone, but define "uninteresting". Just because you've put your character on a story path via its goals and beliefs doesn't (or certainly shouldn't) mean said character is locked into dealing with those and nothing else, nor does it mean those goals/beliefs cannot be changed or abandoned during the campaign as new information comes to light and you as PC learn more about the game world around you.

Players always have choices. That is not in issue.

Framing the PC into the bazaar, or the reliquary, doesn't reduce choices. It just means that they are choices that bear upon the PC's dramatic needs.

How can you possibly conclude that anything involving a scene-jump framing such as either of those examples doesn't reduce choices? Zero - which is how many choices the players/PCs have between one framed scene and the next in these examples - is always a reduction on the number they'd have had if any of the intervening scenery had been described; as the second you introduce said scenery you're also introducing a choice for the players/PCs as to what to do with it, if anything.

And if some of the choices are or lead to red herrings, so be it. Deny these options, and this 'scene framing' idea is every bit as much a railroad as the more conventional type about which so many have complained over the years.

Don't have time right now to get to the other post.

Lanefan