What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Imaro]

In Gygaxian D&D, a session of play could - if the players play poorly, or get unlucky - result in virtually no XP earned: the PCs are bested by or flee from wandering monsters, and fail to find or scavenge any loot. Earning XP is not a guaranteed outcome of playing the game; it is a reward. And a significant goal of play is to earn that reward so as to boost you character. As Gyagx makes amply clear in his DMG, having a high level PC is a mark of skill as a player. He allows for the "artificial" rolling up of high level PCs, to get a one-off experience, but he doesn't approve of it as the principal mode of play. The game is about starting at low level and working your character up.

It's been a while since I played 4e so refresh my memory but I thought if you loose an encounter or do not complete a quest then you don't gain the XP from them? If so then XP is still serving the function of a reward... right?

EDIT: Or do you mean it doesn't server the purpose of individual rewards? If so I can kind of see your point but quests are still individual PC awards....

 

[pemerton]

are you saying that in DMG2-version 4e a PC gets x.p. as a direct reward simply based on the amount of real-time spent playing it at the table, regardless of what it does in the fiction?

In the 4e DMG, XP are awarded for success in encounters (whether combat or skill challenges) and for completing quests. DMG2 adds what it calls "drama rewards" (p 25): "you can give player characters experience rewards for time spent in dramatic scenes of interaction . . . as if they had defeated one monster of their level for every 15 minutes they spend in significant, focused roleplaying that advances the story".

The Rules Compendium further adds (p 161) that experience points are accrued for a skill challenge "[w]hether the adventurers succeed or fail".

The upshot of these rules, in combination, is that around each hour to an hour-and-a-half's play (that is actually focused on the fiction, whether via resolving encounters or free roleplaying) accrues an "encounter's" worth of XP. 8 to 10 such awards are sufficient for a level. Hence the PCs gain about one level every three to four sessions.

If yes, as a design philosophy that probably couldn't be further from how I view and award x.p.

This is why I said that the function of XP in 4e is very different from in classic D&D, although the workings of the system superficially similar.

It's been a while since I played 4e so refresh my memory but I thought if you loose an encounter or do not complete a quest then you don't gain the XP from them?

See above for skill challenges. Combat encounters are less clear, but there is at least a suggestion that you get XP for the monster you defeat even if you lose overall - I think the absence of a similar implicit option for "partial success" awards on skill challenges helps explain the Rules Compendium change.

Quest XP are generally a modest fraction of overall XP - perhaps a quarter to a third? - and I think that it is unlikely that the bulk of quests that are aimed at will not be achieved. If you play solidly by engaging the encounters and fiction of the game, some quests will be achieved. (I should add, I'm taking it for granted - in the context of this thread - that quests will generally be player-generated, as per the advice in the PHB and DMG. If the quests are GM-generated, then it is less likely they will be achieved, but that is already starting to push the game into a rather sucky direction. It's pacing mechanic will start to show some strain under those conditions also.)

 

[Emerikol]

You guys are still at it. I don't think Pemerton and Lanefan are ever going to really agree. Other than that they don't think much of the others playstyle.

It's like a tennis player arguing with a golfer. They both use a ball. You hit the ball. There are some superficial similarities. Which is better? The one YOU enjoy the most.

I don't mean to kill the thread but what is both of your goals?

My only wish is that roleplaying as a gaming concept wasn't so vague that if you aren't careful you'll sort through a few games before you find the style you want if you are pulling notices off the bulletin board at a hobby store. I wish the two of you could categorize your various differences and a few others as well and provide a "pattern" style language that people can use to find what they want. There really is no converting us. We love to argue but we don't really change all that much.

Here is my own style again....
1. Players only know and act as their characters.
2. DM does a LOT of prep for a sandbox campaign world.
3. Pleasure is derived exploring the world created by the DM.
4. Adventures are often contests of skill.
5. Going through a dungeon is about working as a team to beat the obstacles be it trap or monster to achieve the reward.
6. In fact, you could liken adventuring as a group to a cooperative board game with a lot more flexibility.
7. I don't like mechanics that break immersion by forcing the player to act instead of the character.

I play that style and I like it. I'm sure it would not be to the taste of many. So? Don't play that style then. Play one you like. The entire world doesn't have to join your group. Only a set of people with like interests. I'm sure you can find them.

 

[Maxperson]

So your examples of pretending to flap your arms and fly to the moon to scare people, or of playing a crazy PC who (wrongly) believes s/he can do that, are not to the point. The first is some sort of Bluff or Performance check; the second is not an action declaration at all, but just narrating the crazy behaviour of your crazy PC. And if you jump into the volcano as a heroic sacrifice, then - ispo facto - you're not trying to survive!

The second is an action declaration. The crazy person is fully trying to fly to the moon and is declaring that as an action. As for the heroic sacrifice, I may be jumping in, but I'm sure as hell going to try and land on a ledge so that I can sneak out later. Why die when you can be the hero AND live?

So I'll try again: the assertion that there are no limits on action declarations in a RPG can be useful for explaining to a boardgame player the idea that the "flavour text" - ie the shared fiction - actually matters to resolution; but it's not useful when people who already know how RPGing works are trying to analyse the techniques of play in a serious fashion. Thus, if a player of a 1st level PC declares, in D&D, "I cut down the 10 orcs before me!" - that is not a permissible action declaration. The rules of the game require the GM to ask "Which one?" - or perhaps (especially in AD&D) to roll a d10 to see which one the PC attacks. There is a genuine contrast with, say, HeroWars/Quest, or Cortex+ Heroic, where "I cut down the 10 orcs before me!" is a permissible action declaration for any PC who - in the fiction - is wielding a sword.

There are no limits. Declaring that he's going to cut down 10 orcs is permissible. It's just doomed to failure. Automatic failure does not negate or prevent the declaration of the action. The only difference in the systems above is that with AD&D the action cannot succeed, were with the others it can succeed.

A really famous example of an impermissible action declaration in many D&D games is "I get my hired alchemist to concoct a compound of charcoal, sulfur and saltpetre" - because in many campaigns that would be a genre-breaker.

Or, you allow it to succeed but the compound is inert in that universe. There's no good reason that I can see why the action should not be permitted, even in a campaign where it won't succeed.

The constraints on action declaration that I referred to, and which @Lanefan responded to, are primarily constraints related to genre and taste. If the players don't want to play a silly game, then they can refrain from declaring silly actions. If everyone understands that, in this game, holy swords are not just found for sale at local markets, then declaring "I go to the market to by a holy sword" is an impermissible action declaration.

Sure. Nobody is saying that they can't opt not to take certain actions. You've told me repeatedly that I am viewing things through the lense of DM oriented gaming. Now you're the one doing viewing this through the lense of your playstyle. "I go to the market to buy a holy sword" is absolutely a permissible action declaration in a game where they can't be found at local markets. The result of the action is that the PC wanders around for a while and doesn't find one. Why would I railroad the player by not allowing the PC to go look for something that the player knows can't be found? Maybe his PC is frantic to find one and looks places he knows rationally won't be there, but in an act of desperation looks there anyway.

In Gygaxian D&D, a session of play could - if the players play poorly, or get unlucky - result in virtually no XP earned: the PCs are bested by or flee from wandering monsters, and fail to find or scavenge any loot. Earning XP is not a guaranteed outcome of playing the game; it is a reward. And a significant goal of play is to earn that reward so as to boost you character. As Gyagx makes amply clear in his DMG, having a high level PC is a mark of skill as a player. He allows for the "artificial" rolling up of high level PCs, to get a one-off experience, but he doesn't approve of it as the principal mode of play. The game is about starting at low level and working your character up.

In 4e, having a high level PC isn't a mark of skill. Assuming the PCs was started at 1st level, then reaching high level is a sign of having played the game. The XP system functions as a pacing mechanism: as levels are gained, the PCs become mechanically more complicated, gain access to certain mechanical abilities (with fictional correlates) that are "level-gated" (eg flight, invisibility, domination, stun, long range teleport, planar travel, etc), and - most importantly - the fiction escalates through the "tiers of play".

I didn't play 4e. They still get exp if they get unlucky and lose every fight, and fail every test?

Edit: I saw you answer this after I posted.

 

[Maxperson]

(Second parentheses - why would people given a gift ask whether they have to return the gift?)

Because it's a freaking god giving them the items, AND IT'S THE RAVEN QUEEN! That would freak my PC out and I'd want to make sure that I wasn't doing anything to piss her off. Or a number of other reasons I could come up with. I'd still want to thank her so as not to be rude, and depending on how she played into the campaign prior to this point, perhaps speak with her about other things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That it's the DM's job to say no to things the players try that are impossible, not the player's job to limit themselves to only attempting the possible.

Its the 'job' of everyone at the table to decide what and how they will play, it doesn't fall to one person or another. This is just as true in a 'standard' D&D game, where most DMs will hesitate to accept certain kinds of characters, behavior, etc. Players in these games are also likely to do certain things and abstain from certain things in order to 'keep order'. Heck, 3.5e is virtually unplayable unless the players agree (tacitly or not) to refrain from doing 'broken' things. That may be a bit of an extreme case, but all games work this way.

So, I don't find it at all unusual that players would ask themselves questions like "Do I want to play a game where PCs pull wands out of their ***es?" and they usually answer 'no'. Anyway, if the GM is capable of delivering a reasonably fun, entertaining game, then there's little reason for players to try to undermine that. True troublemakers would be booted out regardless of rules or style of play as well, so I don't see that as a criticism or weakness of one type of game.

Now, does that mean the players and the GM will always agree completely on what SHOULD be in the game? I don't think so, and I don't think players will always agree with EACHOTHER either, but the same goes for standard D&D games where players disagree all the time on how to proceed. Somehow they come to a consensus, usually. If a player introduced some factor into a Story Now game that other players didn't think belonged for whatever reason (genre, tone, dramatic reasons, etc.) they CAN object. If all you get is constant profound irreconcilable difference of opinion, then you need to change games or players.

 

[Maxperson]

Its the 'job' of everyone at the table to decide what and how they will play, it doesn't fall to one person or another. This is just as true in a 'standard' D&D game, where most DMs will hesitate to accept certain kinds of characters, behavior, etc. Players in these games are also likely to do certain things and abstain from certain things in order to 'keep order'. Heck, 3.5e is virtually unplayable unless the players agree (tacitly or not) to refrain from doing 'broken' things. That may be a bit of an extreme case, but all games work this way.

So, I don't find it at all unusual that players would ask themselves questions like "Do I want to play a game where PCs pull wands out of their ***es?" and they usually answer 'no'. Anyway, if the GM is capable of delivering a reasonably fun, entertaining game, then there's little reason for players to try to undermine that. True troublemakers would be booted out regardless of rules or style of play as well, so I don't see that as a criticism or weakness of one type of game.

Now, does that mean the players and the GM will always agree completely on what SHOULD be in the game? I don't think so, and I don't think players will always agree with EACHOTHER either, but the same goes for standard D&D games where players disagree all the time on how to proceed. Somehow they come to a consensus, usually. If a player introduced some factor into a Story Now game that other players didn't think belonged for whatever reason (genre, tone, dramatic reasons, etc.) they CAN object. If all you get is constant profound irreconcilable difference of opinion, then you need to change games or players.

That seems more like a social contract thing, rather than a PC can't perform an action thing. Outside of highly limited situations like a PC whose entire body is bound attempting to run, the vast majority of actions, even ones impossible to achieve, can at least be attempted. The social contract, though, will keep certain actions from being attempted in the first place. Heck, even with the bound PC example, the PC can struggle in the attempt and then I'd just narrate failure.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, yes, except for the "lesser" bit. Either as DM or player, I am there to entertain the others at the table; they are my audience. Equally, I am a part of theirs as they also entertain the gathering.

Lan-"perhaps the primary thing I require from any player in my games is that he or she be entertaining"-efan

Fair enough, I think 'lesser' isn't quite what I'm trying to say, I'm just not always super articulate. In the narrative fiction, the players role seems 'subsidiary' in some sense. In Story Now its different from the GM's role, but EQUAL. Certainly they're the ones that will be thinking of 'things that could happen' in the story. The GM is more there to both fill in and make sure that whatever that element is that it challenges what the PCs are, want, value, or stand for (maybe this is not a complete list).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just because my giant-hating Dwarf wants to go and bash some giants doesn't mean his attention won't be severely diverted for a few glorious hours if on the way to the giants he notices that he's passing a room full of undefended gold coins!

Now, wait a minute... You guys accused us of RAILROADING the party because we glossed over the trip to the giants, but WE GAVE THEM A CHOICE TO DO OTHER THINGS and they said "no, go to the giants", and now I have to give them YET MORE choices of different things to do when they ALREADY told me EXACTLY what they wanted to do and had a chance to do something else! I don't accept this judgment, I don't even accept that it is a reasonable or fair characterization, AT ALL! Can you guys at least understand why that would be?

On the odd occasion I'll drop in some power-up stuff kind of like what you did here; on other occasions, particularly if it's levels they need, I'll lob a side-trek adventure in their way and see if they bite.

I think lootz play a quite different role in different games, so its certainly not like there's a 'right way' to do it With 4e's style of system certainly there's less of a need to cast it in terms of strictly a 'reward', although gear CAN be a goal. A character in my 1st 4e campaign had a goal to find a certain weapon. Actually the goal was to find the maker of the weapon, but finding the handiwork was very interesting in its own right to her, and the item later explained several plot elements.

That's exactly right! Maybe there IS something else they'd rather do instead...but they won't ever have the chance to unless you... ...do this, by making mention of anything interesting they pass during those 30 minutes.

NO NO NO! We already gave them the choice to 'do something else'. The players could have even MADE UP that something else, in effect, by just pursuing some other interest. There's no need to keep constantly dangling one distraction after another when the players have already signaled what they want to do. Its not even just silly, it gets actually obfuscatory and even rude at a certain point if the GM won't just GET ON WITH IT!

Chances are they'll still go on to the giants, either right away or later, but if they find the slimy passage or the room with the knight's skeleton nailed to the wall more interesting on the way, let 'em at it!

Again though, if the players want some dungeon crawly "lets wander the Underdark in search of fun" they can say so, we gave them the choice of 'other stuff'. If they ask "has anyone heard of any interesting areas to explore" or something like that, I'll happily oblige them, although I'll work in things one or more of the players have shown interest in before.

So, a skeleton nailed to a wall sounds fun, maybe someone asks about finding the grave of the legendary Sir Mallory! Again, the players are partners here, they're free to make history checks or whatever to generate inputs that can generate new framing.

Fundamentally we just have, in Story Now, a streamlined way of introducing content. Instead of long and often tedious sequences of blundering around in lots of side passages hoping to find the 'interesting thing' they want, we figure out what that is, mechanically create the possibility that it will exist in the fiction, and get to it.

Just because the players say the next event they're interested in is the giant's cave doesn't mean the giant's cave will be the next event they encounter...or that the intervening encounter won't end up being even more interesting...or less; you don't know until you do it.

But I DO know it. Because it was told to me outright by the players, 'go to the giants now GM'. POSSIBLY the GM is so clever that he's made up something even better to put in their way, but then why were the giants even there? If they're not that likely to be interesting to the players they probably wouldn't ask, and the GM (me) would presumably go on in some other direction.

Admittedly, Story Now is NOT about the GM throwing random stuff at the party that he just thought of or rolled on a table or whatever. There's no denying that. I'm asserting that those techniques don't generate the same sort of story as going to the action does. Its fun! Other things may be fun too, matter of taste!

 

[Maxperson]

Now, wait a minute... You guys accused us of RAILROADING the party because we glossed over the trip to the giants, but WE GAVE THEM A CHOICE TO DO OTHER THINGS and they said "no, go to the giants", and now I have to give them YET MORE choices of different things to do when they ALREADY told me EXACTLY what they wanted to do and had a chance to do something else! I don't accept this judgment, I don't even accept that it is a reasonable or fair characterization, AT ALL! Can you guys at least understand why that would be?

NO NO NO! We already gave them the choice to 'do something else'. The players could have even MADE UP that something else, in effect, by just pursuing some other interest. There's no need to keep constantly dangling one distraction after another when the players have already signaled what they want to do. Its not even just silly, it gets actually obfuscatory and even rude at a certain point if the GM won't just GET ON WITH IT!

Yes, yes, yes! Why? It goes back to the players not being capable(at any table) of thinking of everything. Sure, they told you they wanted to go to the giants. What they didn't tell you, because they didn't think of it, was what a cool thing it would be to examine an ancient dwarven altar lost near the giant lands as they pass by. But thank you DM for putting it there. It was a blast we didn't consider.

As much as they enjoy your game, your players are missing out on a lot of great fun exploring.

P.S. it was [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] who glossed over the trip to the giants, not you, so there is no "we" there. Also, he was not accused of railroading(at least not by me) for glossing over the trip. It was railroading because he made decisions on behalf of the PCs in their approach to the giants.

Again though, if the players want some dungeon crawly "lets wander the Underdark in search of fun" they can say so, we gave them the choice of 'other stuff'. If they ask "has anyone heard of any interesting areas to explore" or something like that, I'll happily oblige them, although I'll work in things one or more of the players have shown interest in before.

Which is fine. Every playstyle has pros and cons, and one con of the Story Now style is that it is weaker on options. If the players fail to think of something they would find fun, they miss out. The DM who knows them and knows what they find enjoyable doesn't get to set up fun things for the players outside of what they say they want to do.