What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

The "feeling" you refer to seems to involve, at its core, having someone else tell you a story about a place they made up.

That sort of 'setting tourism' would be the arguably-dysfunctional extreme of a focus on world-building. But you can delve pretty deeply into building a world and running a game within it, without taking it that far.

What I describe isn't particularly about "setting tourism."

Every time a player talks about "scouting out" some location, or "gathering information", or similar episodes of "exploration", in the context of a GM-worldbuilding RPG, they are talking about having the GM tell them a story about the place s/he made up.

Take the simplest example of dungeon play:

Player: "I poke in front of me with a 10' pole as I walk down the 30' long passage."

<GM consults dungeon map and key>

GM: "OK, after 10' of walking you feel that the floor in front of you - half way down the passage - gives under your pole. It seems to be a trapdoor of some sort."​

What is happening, at the table, in this episode of play? The player makes a move by declaring an action for his/her PC. The purpose of that move is to get the GM to relate some of the content of a fiction that s/he has made up.

In a traditional dungeon there is also a boardgame/wargame element - because the dungeon map is a physical artefact on which the movement of the PCs is tracked - but that tends to be absent from much contemporary RPGing.

Eg:

<GM describes PCs passing through the city gates.>

Player: "We look around. We want to find the quarter of the city which is likely to have curio shops, sages, astrologers, that sort of thing - so that we might be able to get some item or clue to help us fight that demon."

GM: "OK, well, you can see three roads leading away from the gate. The widest is directly in front of you, and seems to lead up a hill where you can see the spires of a temple at the top. To the left a road leads around the base of the hill. The buildings look ill-kept, and the people coming from that direction look poorly dressed and the shoes are muddy. To the right, a road follows the wall up the ridge. There are stone buildings. You see a small group of well-dressed young people coming towards you, and you can hear they're speaking a foreign language."

Player: "OK, we take the right road. It seems most likely to have the scholars or travellers we're looking for."​

This doesn't depend on maps and keys - it's just as likely the GM is reading from or paraphrasing or relying on a passage of description that s/he wrote earlier, or that was published in a commercial setting book. So it doesn't have the boardgame/wargame aspect of classic dungeoneering.

But it is still about the players declaring moves that trigger the GM to tell them things that the GM (or other author) made up about the setting.

My impression - from reading rulebooks, from reading blogs, from reading these boards - is that this sort of thing is pretty common in RPGing, especially contemporary D&D play.

It's not about telling a story, it's about a world. Describing a forest at a particular moment in time isn't telling a story, right?

Well, "story" is less technical than "fiction" - which some posters don't like. I'm just trying to use a fairly generic word.

When I Google "story meaing" I get "an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment." That's what I'm talking about. Earlier parts of this post illustrate what I have i mind.

 

[happyhermit]

...
Well, "story" is less technical than "fiction" - which some posters don't like. I'm just trying to use a fairly generic word.

When I Google "story meaing" I get "an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment." That's what I'm talking about. Earlier parts of this post illustrate what I have i mind.

Ok, by that definition "worldbuilding" can occur without the GM telling a story ie; Describing a forest. Also by that definition, GMs in "no myth" games frequently tell stories to the players ie; The NPC walks across the room and attacks you.

What does this have to do with the purpose of worldbuilding again?

 

[pemerton]

Ok, by that definition "worldbuilding" can occur without the GM telling a story ie; Describing a forest. Also by that definition, GMs in "no myth" games frequently tell stories to the players ie; The NPC walks across the room and attacks you.

What does this have to do with the purpose of worldbuilding again?

There are a number of differences. Here are some:

* If the "no myth" game uses "kickers" or some similar technique then the initial situation may not be narrated by the GM at all.

* If the "no myth" GM is framing a scene that doesn't follow directly from a prior episode of resolution, the content of the scene is established by reference to player cues, not the GM's conception of "the world".

* More often, the "no myth" GM is framing a scene incorporating consequences from prior episodes of action resolution.​

It can't be true both that worldbuilding yields some experience/feeling that "no myth" doesn't and that there is no difference between the two. I'm trying to identify one of the differences, namely, that a GM-worldbuilding game contains an element that "no myth" does not. That element is telling the players stuff that tthe GM already made up, typically as a response to player declarations of actions for their PCs that trigger such telling - I gave two illustrations of those sorts of actions just upthread.

 

[Maxperson]

What I describe isn't particularly about "setting tourism."

Every time a player talks about "scouting out" some location, or "gathering information", or similar episodes of "exploration", in the context of a GM-worldbuilding RPG, they are talking about having the GM tell them a story about the place s/he made up.

Take the simplest example of dungeon play:

Player: "I poke in front of me with a 10' pole as I walk down the 30' long passage."

<GM consults dungeon map and key>

GM: "OK, after 10' of walking you feel that the floor in front of you - half way down the passage - gives under your pole. It seems to be a trapdoor of some sort."​

What is happening, at the table, in this episode of play? The player makes a move by declaring an action for his/her PC. The purpose of that move is to get the GM to relate some of the content of a fiction that s/he has made up.

As opposed to...

Player: "I poke in front of me with a 10' pole as I walk down the 30' long passage."

DM: (after a failed roll):"Okay, after 10' of walking you feel that the floor in front of you - half way down the passage - gives under your pole. It seems to be a trapdoor of some sort."

While that may not be the exact dialogue used in Story Now, the goal is the same. The player is still declaring actions for the PC for the purpose of getting the DM to relate some content of fiction that the DM makes up. The difference is that you improvise the content.

 

[happyhermit]

There are a number of differences. Here are some:

* If the "no myth" game uses "kickers" or some similar technique then the initial situation may not be narrated by the GM at all.​

A "no myth" game can use them, so can a game with worldbuilding, okay. The initial situation is only one example of the GM telling a story according to the definition you provided though, it happens all the time.

* If the "no myth" GM is framing a scene that doesn't follow directly from a prior episode of resolution, the content of the scene is established by reference to player cues, not the GM's conception of "the world".

Okay, so the GM is telling a story, but it's different because it's based on player cues and is unaffected by the GM's conception of the world? So the GM doesn't consider what has already been established during the game ie; NPCs, Factions, PC backstory, etc. not to mention unspoken assumptions ie; gravity, when setting that scene? If they do then it is actually; The GM is framing a scene based on player cues and the GM's conception of the world (albeit the GM's conception of the world is subject to limitations). Which is also what happens in most games, without the limitations on the GM's conception of the world obviously, or at least those specific limitations.

* More often, the "no myth" GM is framing a scene incorporating consequences from prior episodes of action resolution.

Saying this is not unique to no-myth games might be the understatement of the year.

It can't be true both that worldbuilding yields some experience/feeling that "no myth" doesn't and that there is no difference between the two. I'm trying to identify one of the differences, namely, that a GM-worldbuilding game contains an element that "no myth" does not. That element is telling the players stuff that tthe GM already made up, typically as a response to player declarations of actions for their PCs that trigger such telling - I gave two illustrations of those sorts of actions just upthread.

Well, why didn't you say so? Instead you said a bunch of stuff that isn't really true and presented a bunch of false dichotomies. When playing in a world that is pre-defined to some extent (published, group created, GM created, established through previous play, etc.) then when the GM is describing the world it will include those pre-defined details, or be influenced by them. If the difference you are pointing out is that in a game where the GM at least in part created the world then the description will include elements they created, then that makes perfect sense.

It's not about the GM "telling stories" or not, it isn't about the whether some actions are impossible or not, not even about whether or not those stories or actions are affected by previously determined aspects of "the world", it's just about where they come from. For some players that is important. Like I mentioned earlier for some seeking "that feeling" (that they have access to a "real" world) it helps if it seems like the world is fully fleshed out somewhere and reacting to their PCs accordingly, and it hinders that feeling if they think it isn't, or it seems like things are being plopped down in front of them, or things are being determined randomly, or other players (not through their PCs) are effecting the world. It would seem that for some other mixes are ideal, some might prefer a highly detailed published setting, because they can read it for themselves. Some might prefer a lack of GM created stuff in the world, or rather, limitations imposed on it because what counts as GM created could just as easily be seen as "whatever the GM chooses" because after all even just picking things to match what the PCs are interested in is the GM "creating" something.

 

[pemerton]

As opposed to...

Player: "I poke in front of me with a 10' pole as I walk down the 30' long passage."

DM: (after a failed roll):"Okay, after 10' of walking you feel that the floor in front of you - half way down the passage - gives under your pole. It seems to be a trapdoor of some sort."

While that may not be the exact dialogue used in Story Now

It's not an example of "story now" play at all. There's no stakes in the action declaration, for a start.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not an example of "story now" play at all. There's no stakes in the action declaration, for a start.

So through in stakes and it still changes nothing. He's still getting you to say stuff by performing an action.

 

[pemerton]

A "no myth" game can use them, so can a game with worldbuilding

Can you give me an example of a GM-worldbuilding game that uses "kickers" to start the action? I've never come across one.

 

[pemerton]

What is happening, at the table, in this episode of play? The player makes a move by declaring an action for his/her PC. The purpose of that move is to get the GM to relate some of the content of a fiction that s/he has made up.

While that may not be the exact dialogue used in Story Now, the goal is the same. The player is still declaring actions for the PC for the purpose of getting the DM to relate some content of fiction that the DM makes up. The difference is that you improvise the content.

So through in stakes and it still changes nothing. He's still getting you to say stuff by performing an action.

Once there are stakes to the action declaration, it's not the case that the purpose of the move is to get the GM to relate some of the content of a fiction that s/he has made up.

The player will have established some goal for his/her action - similar to the example of Aura Reading the feather. So the goal of the action declaration is to establish that whatever this is obtains.

That's the point of "story now" RPGing.

 

[Maxperson]

Once there are stakes to the action declaration, it's not the case that the purpose of the move is to get the GM to relate some of the content of a fiction that s/he has made up.

The player will have established some goal for his/her action - similar to the example of Aura Reading the feather. So the goal of the action declaration is to establish that whatever this is obtains.

That's the point of "story now" RPGing.

It absolute is the case that they are getting you to make up stuff. They are just getting you to make up stuff related to their goal. You're still making up stuff.