What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Maxperson]

You seem to have missed the way that "say 'yes' or roll the dice" actually works.

If the GM calls for a check and the check succeeds, then the player's intent is realised, and so the only work the GM did was to contribute to the framing, to call for a check in response to the action declaration, and to set the DC. It is the player's desire for the fiction that comes to pass (just the same as in combat: a successful disarm roll, for instance, isn't just a cue to the GM to make something up: it establishes a definite outcome in the fiction, namely, that the foe is disarmed).

No, I didn't miss that you have complete discretion on HOW that intent is realized. You can pick any way you choose that meets his intent, and there will usually be many ways. Your player is declaring an action in order to get you to say stuff. Either you say stuff dealing with a failed roll, or you say stuff that meets his intent. He still has to wait on you to say stuff and declare actions to hear what you have to say.

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure if you intend this as a rhetorical question or not. I will treat it as non-rhetorical, and answer it. To the extent that you intended it rhetorically, you'll probably think my answer inadequate - sometimes that happens in discussions among human beings!

<snip>

Here's why I characterise this as a railroad.

We don't know exactly how it has come about that the PCs are being pursued through the buiilding - most typically, I think, that would be a consequence resulting from some recent bit of past play. But in any event, that pursuit is now the salient pressure on the PCs (and hence the players) in the game. In response to that pressue, this particular player has expressed an interest in the fiction developing in a certain direction - namely, that his/her PC finds signs of a secret door in the bare wall, so that the PCs might escape though it.

Now, because we're playing a game with "moves" and dice and stuff, rather than just round-robin storytelling, the player's desire about the fiction doesn't happen automatically. Rather, the player declares an action for his/her PC that folows from that desire. Success in that action declaration will meant that the player gets want s/he wants vis-a-vis the fiction (ie the PC finds signs of a secret door); failure means s/he won't.

(Note that this action declaration satisfies other typical constraints on player-side moves in a FRPG. For instnace, it is declared from the first-person perspective of the PC. And it's a well-establshed trope of fantasy gaming that bare stone walls can in fact have secret doors in them.)

In the example I've given, the player's action declaration does not succeed, but not because s/he rolled too low on the dice. (This contrasts with a failed attack roll.) It fails because the GM has already decicded that it can't succeed.

That is the limit on the players' choice - his/her choice to have escape occur by way of secret door has been vetoed by the GM, by application of the prior worldbuilding/setting authorship. That is why I call it a railroad.

Telling a player that something is impossible or doesn't work without a check isn't a railroad. That you personally prefer to have outcomes determined by dice doesn't mean that outcomes that aren't determined by dice are railroads or that you should use that pejorative term for them. That's just you being a dick.

Is it a railroad if the PCs hear something coming down the dungeon hall at them, they lob a fireball or other incendiary at it, only to find it's a fire elemental and it was immune to fire? Certainly both of those events - an unidentified creature coming down the hall, and PCs lobbing some kind of fiery attack at them - are within the typical constraints of moves in a FRPG.

 

[pemerton]

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..

Sure, but so what? It's not like anyone's telling a story in that mode.

Well, someone is describing a series of imaginary places and events to entertain their friends. That seems like a form of storytelling.

And if that's an important part of the point of GM-worldbuilding - ie it's to provide fiction that will be entertaining - then that's worth noting. Some posters much earlier in the thread, made this point; but others seemed committed to denying that worldbuilding is about narrating a fiction at all! It's that latter claim that makes no real sense to me.

 

[pemerton]

If the GM calls for a check and the check succeeds, then the player's intent is realised

No, I didn't miss that you have complete discretion on HOW that intent is realized. You can pick any way you choose that meets his intent, and there will usually be many ways.

You are just making this up.

From BW Gold (pp 24-25, 30):

Let’s start with the core of the Burning Wheel system. We call it “Intent and Task.” . . .

What do you want do and why do you want your character to do it? . . .

When a player states “I kill him!” we know his intent. By describing how his character will undertake this intent, he defines the task. Clearly stating and linking the task and intent allows player and GM to determine what ability needs to be tested. . . .

A task is a measurable, finite and quantifiable act performed by a character: attacking someone with a sword, studying a scroll or resting in an abbey. A task describes how you accomplish your intent. . . .

[W]hat happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task. . . .

A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test.​

In other words, it is the player who establishes what happens in the fiction as the reasult of a successful check.

From the MHRP rulebook (pp OM46, OM50):

As a player, when it’s time for your action, you need to make your intent as clear as possible to the Watcher and other players before you even pick up the dice. If you’ve said what you want to do, make sure you’re suggesting what you want out of the action. . . . Knowing what you want if you succeed and what you think will happen if you don’t is key to the next step. . . .

Once you have the two totals (action and reaction) you can compare them to each other. You’re looking to see if your opponent’s reaction total is greater than your action total. If this is the case, your action fails. . . .

If the reaction total is equal to or lower than your action total, your action succeeds. You can use your effect die to create an effect: stress, an asset, or a complication.​

Again, it is the player who establishes the consequences (in the ficiton, and their mechanical expression) if a check is successful.

From the DitV rulebook (p 54):

To launch a conflict, we begin by establishing what’s at stake, setting the stage, and figuring out who’s participating. Every participating player [which may include the GM if its not PC vs PC] takes up dice to match the circumstances and throws them down all at once. From there on, the conflict plays out kind of like the betting in poker. One player “raises” by having a character act and putting forward two dice to back it up, and all of the other players whose characters are affected by the act have to put forward dice of their own to “see.” When you use dice to Raise and See they’re gone: put them back in the bowl and don’t use them again in this conflict. . . .

Anyone who has too few dice to See when they have to — and can’t or won’t escalate — is out of the conflict. Whoever’s left at the end gets to decide the fate of what’s at stake.​

If the player of a PC wins the conflict, that player gets to decide the fate of what's at stake. The GM has no discretion here.

As I said, your assertion that the GM has discretion to narrate the outcome of a success is just made up. That may be true in some RPGs (eg I'm sure that the 2nd ed AD&D rulebooks say something like this). It may be accepted at some tables. It is not consistent with "say 'yes' or roll the dice".

 

[pemerton]

Telling a player that something is impossible or doesn't work without a check isn't a railroad.

Nor did I say that it is. I added additional qualifiers. I didn't make the qualifiers up arbitrarily. They follow from a whole line of RPG design and play.

Is it a railroad if the PCs hear something coming down the dungeon hall at them, they lob a fireball or other incendiary at it, only to find it's a fire elemental and it was immune to fire? Certainly both of those events - an unidentified creature coming down the hall, and PCs lobbing some kind of fiery attack at them - are within the typical constraints of moves in a FRPG.

I'm not that interested in what is "typical", given that "typical" constraints of moves in a RPG include the GM having permission to declare the search for a secret door a failure on the basis that the GM's notes do not record the presence of any such wall in the door.

As to whether or not the example you give is a railroad, it depends very heavily on context. As I said not far upthread, there are marginal cases, and much earlier in this thread I indicated my views about where the boundaries lie.

Here's my question to you: why do you think it's OK for the GM to declare the search for a secret door a failure indpendently of the check, but not think it's OK for the GM to declare the attack against the orc a failure independelty of the check (eg maybe the GM's notes record that this orc won't die the first time it is met, but will always evade and escape - I have come across modules with that sort of thing in them).

Now, if the answer is you think that the same approach to the Orc is OK, well fine - the world is populated by different people with different tastes - but are you really surprised that someone else might think that's a railroad?

But if you (as I think is more common among ENworld RPGers) would regard that treatment of an attack on the orc as a railroad, why are you so incensed by the same thing being suggested of a like treatment of the search for a secret door as an escape route?

 

[happyhermit]

You are just making this up.

From BW Gold (pp 24-25, 30):

Let’s start with the core of the Burning Wheel system. We call it “Intent and Task.” . . .
...
In other words, it is the player who establishes what happens in the fiction as the reasult of a successful check.
...
As I said, your assertion that the GM has discretion to narrate the outcome of a success is just made up. That may be true in some RPGs (eg I'm sure that the 2nd ed AD&D rulebooks say something like this). It may be accepted at some tables. It is not consistent with "say 'yes' or roll the dice".​

Only going to address BW specifically because I have the same book in front of me ATM, but there is a fair amount of GM discretion in narrating the outcome of success (more-so with failures). The example given under success for instance;

"Your insults are heard flung across the room. Some eyebrows are raised. He stops walking away from you and turns, red in the face. It seems you have a moment in which you are the center of attention."
...
The GM imbellishes on the result with the successful test. The target is humiliated and the GM tells the player how.

It's probably also worth mentioning (since I blew the dust off this thing) that in BW, the player's ability to make the test in the first place is ultimately at the GM's discretion. ie;

Sometimes a player will wish to have his character roll dice for something at an inappropriate juncture in play. It is the GM's role to pace events and keep play flowing evenly. Therefore, he can have a player hold off on making a test until the appropriated time or have him stay his hand entirely

You know actually, upon re-reading I am not even seeing anything in the rules to indicate that the players should rolling a test to find a secret door that wasn't already established to exist. The examples given involve interacting with things already established. If the GM doesn't think there's a door to be found it would be a DoF roll which comes with caveats;

The dispute must surround something reasonable and feasible within the game context. A player cannot make a stand for beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet and hope to get a DoF roll.

So if the GM determines it's reasonable the player gets a 1/6 chance of it happening.​

 

[pemerton]

You know actually, upon re-reading I am not even seeing anything in the rules to indicate that the players should rolling a test to find a secret door that wasn't already established to exist. The examples given involve interacting with things already established.

This is the province of Wises and similar skills. (In the Adventure Burner, I think it is Architecture skill that is referenced in the context of trying to learn of a secret entrance into a fortress.)

Only going to address BW specifically because I have the same book in front of me ATM, but there is a fair amount of GM discretion in narrating the outcome of success (more-so with failures). The example given under success for instance

Here's the full example (BW Gold, p 31):

The most important criteria for passing a test is that play moves in the direction of the success, even if only momentarily.

“I want to humiliate him. They can’ t ignore me!” shouts Andy, enraged.

“How?” inquires the GM.

“I raise my voice and insult him in front of the entire party. I use my Conspicuous skill.”

“Roll. Your obstacle is 3 to gain the attention of the crowd and be heard. Extra successes will go toward incensing them with the spectacle.”

“Four successes.”

“Your insults are heard flung across the room. Some eyebrows are raised. He stops walking away from you and turns, red in the face. It seems you have a moment in which you are the center of attention.”​

In this example, the player states his intent and task straight away: humiliate his opponent using shouts and insults while testing his Conspicuous skill. The GM embellishes on the result with the successful test. The target is humiliated and the GM tells the player how.​

Here's further commentary (most recently published in The Codex, pp 114, 119):

Success in Buring Wheel is rather straightforward, almost rigid. You get what you ask for. Neither the GM nor the other players can impede or negate that result. . . .

The player's intent is made manifets and he descirbes his character's actions. . . . Wheny they complete their inevitably entertaining descriptions, I try to embellish a little. I try to add in reactions or other details. Adding a small detail can really help. It maes great success even more vivid and memorable. There's something special about collaborating to describe a brilliant victory.

If I'm unsure of where a player is going with his description of success, I'll back off and ask a few quick questions . . . Rather than stepping on his victorious toes, I try to create room for him to make a statement. . . .

The player accomplishes his intent. Describe the result. Honor it with an engaging illumination. Make it special.​

The GM is subservient to the player in embellishing. S/he does not enjoy the sort of discretion that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] has suggested.

 

[Maxperson]

You are just making this up.

From BW Gold (pp 24-25, 30):

Let’s start with the core of the Burning Wheel system. We call it “Intent and Task.” . . .

What do you want do and why do you want your character to do it? . . .

When a player states “I kill him!” we know his intent. By describing how his character will undertake this intent, he defines the task. Clearly stating and linking the task and intent allows player and GM to determine what ability needs to be tested. . . .

A task is a measurable, finite and quantifiable act performed by a character: attacking someone with a sword, studying a scroll or resting in an abbey. A task describes how you accomplish your intent. . . .

[W]hat happens after the dice have come to rest and the successes are counted? If the successes equal or exceed the obstacle, the character has succeeded in his goal - he achieved his intent and completed the task. . . .

A successful roll is sacrosanct in Burning Wheel and neither GM nor other players can change the fact that the act was successful. The GM may only embellish or reinforce a successful ability test.​

In other words, it is the player who establishes what happens in the fiction as the reasult of a successful check.

You do realize that you just backed me up, not you, right? I said that there will "usually be many ways", and there usually will. Something extremely simple like swinging a sword or reading a scroll falls outside of the "usually" provision. Something like a use arcana to check the feather to see if it is useful falls into the bolded portion of the rules you just quoted. His intent is to see if it's useful. YOU get to make it useful in any way you feel like as that accomplishes his intent. The player awaits your decision on HOW it's useful. I

In other words, he has declared an action in order to get you to say stuff.

From the MHRP rulebook (pp OM46, OM50):

As a player, when it’s time for your action, you need to make your intent as clear as possible to the Watcher and other players before you even pick up the dice. If you’ve said what you want to do, make sure you’re suggesting what you want out of the action. . . . Knowing what you want if you succeed and what you think will happen if you don’t is key to the next step. . . .

Once you have the two totals (action and reaction) you can compare them to each other. You’re looking to see if your opponent’s reaction total is greater than your action total. If this is the case, your action fails. . . .

If the reaction total is equal to or lower than your action total, your action succeeds. You can use your effect die to create an effect: stress, an asset, or a complication.​

Again, it is the player who establishes the consequences (in the ficiton, and their mechanical expression) if a check is successful.

This is little different from the first one above. The clear intent was to see if the feather was useful. The consequences were useful feather. The DM gets to say HOW it's useful. At least as far as the quote above reads anyway. If that's not the case and the player is describing both success and failure for every action towards every goal, then the game doesn't need a DM. Just have another player roll the dice and make decisions for opponents that are created by players.

From the DitV rulebook (p 54):

To launch a conflict, we begin by establishing what’s at stake, setting the stage, and figuring out who’s participating. Every participating player [which may include the GM if its not PC vs PC] takes up dice to match the circumstances and throws them down all at once. From there on, the conflict plays out kind of like the betting in poker. One player “raises” by having a character act and putting forward two dice to back it up, and all of the other players whose characters are affected by the act have to put forward dice of their own to “see.” When you use dice to Raise and See they’re gone: put them back in the bowl and don’t use them again in this conflict. . . .

Anyone who has too few dice to See when they have to — and can’t or won’t escalate — is out of the conflict. Whoever’s left at the end gets to decide the fate of what’s at stake.​

If the player of a PC wins the conflict, that player gets to decide the fate of what's at stake. The GM has no discretion here.

As I said, your assertion that the GM has discretion to narrate the outcome of a success is just made up. That may be true in some RPGs (eg I'm sure that the 2nd ed AD&D rulebooks say something like this). It may be accepted at some tables. It is not consistent with "say 'yes' or roll the dice".

You seem to have found a game where the DM is useless and the players make everything up. Yay? First, one game out of four(I'm including D&D since that's the primary focus of this conversation) doesn't really change what I said. If the players are making up all of the details of both successes and failures for their actions, you aren't needed for that game. There's no real point to having a DM.

 

[pemerton]

You seem to have found a game where the DM is useless

This is (ostensibly) a reply to a post which actually set out (part of) the role of the GM in DitV.

I think it's very telling that once the role of the GM is not to manage secret backstory, but rather to establish situation and play the opposition within that situation, you describe the GM as "useless".

What you call the "useless" GM is what I call the non-railroading GM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yup....useless or railroading, the only two types of GMs that there may be. So sad that there can't be some middle ground and that instead, everyone's game stinks because it's one extreme or the other.