What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Bedrockgames]

Well if the DM puts a ditch somewhere and then puts something on the other side of it and then puts an invisible force field blocking anyone from jumping the ditch...I have to say I agree that such a situation is a bit whacky. What else is causing the inevitable outcome other than DM desire?

Most examples like that are not so extreme. All he is talking about is the ability of the world to have hidden dangers and pitfalls (dangers and pitfalls you sometimes can detect if you are careful, smart or lucky). But it is not usually about the GM making playing "gotcha" or forcing an outcome. It is simply about making the world not always be fully predictable and maintaining a level of excitement.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Again, people clearly are using this word in two different ways. Rather than fight over the meaning of a single term (which you are both using differently), just realize one of you is talking about the freedom of the player to make choices about what their character attempts in the world and one is talking (I am assuming) more about the ability of the character to shape the world or shape the story. These are very different approaches to play that both invoke character agency in different ways for what they are trying to do, and the difference isn't a minor one.

Good luck. I've made this exact point and neither side even paid attention other than to say I was wrong and continue on.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Good luck. I've made this exact point and neither side even paid attention other than to say I was wrong and continue on.

Lol. Well, I've been in too many conversations that revolve around controlling language and terminology in order to advance a playstyle. I think a much more honest and genuine approach is to 1) use mainly descriptive definitions (and understand when there are different uses of a word, 2) always avoid equivocation (I see this a lot these discussion) and 3) try to understand what someone actually means when they use a word.

Also, just a general observation, there is a lot of coined jargon being used in this discussion that I think obscures the points people are making and adds confusion rather than clarity (I am sure some posters find the terminology they are using but my guess is 90% of posters just find it makes peoples' points difficult to understand).

 

[Bedrockgames]

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]. Should you go back and look, you will see me posting in good faith in the beginning, arguing against the bad faith misrepresentations of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] saw that as well. After a long while, though, I got sick of all the misrepresentations(as it became apparent that he was just deliberately misportraying things) and started tossing them right back at [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] saw that as well. Then later on I explained what I was doing to [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]. Even after all of that, he chooses willful ignorance over truth and is portraying me the way he is posting here.
.

I honestly can't think of worse use of my time than to spend it trying to figure out who made what point when on a long thread.

 

[Maxperson]

Most examples like that are not so extreme. All he is talking about is the ability of the world to have hidden dangers and pitfalls (dangers and pitfalls you sometimes can detect if you are careful, smart or lucky). But it is not usually about the GM making playing "gotcha" or forcing an outcome. It is simply about making the world not always be fully predictable and maintaining a level of excitement.

Yeah. A gotcha to me has to be pretty extreme. Putting a medusa behind a door, with no way to find out in advance is a gotcha("Okay guys. You open the door and let's see who turns to stone!"). Possibly bumping your nose at a ditch isn't a gotcha.

 

[Maxperson]

Lol. Well, I've been in too many conversations that revolve around controlling language and terminology in order to advance a playstyle. I think a much more honest and genuine approach is to 1) use mainly descriptive definitions (and understand when there are different uses of a word, 2) always avoid equivocation (I see this a lot these discussion) and 3) try to understand what someone actually means when they use a word.

The only reason I've fought so hard over the definition here, is that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] have been redefining player agency in order to then say that their style gives players greater agency [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]) or is how players get agency, implying that my style removes agency altogether [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]). If someone is going to redefine a term so in order to poo poo on how I do things, I'm going to fight back rather than try to understand them. I'm perfectly willing to understand a discussion on how things are different. I even tried multiple times to extend an olive branch by saying that the agency wasn't greater for either side, just different, but they wouldn't accept the branch and move on.

 

[pemerton]

If the DM is using his desire to just cause failure, that's a railroad. If the game environment is causing failure, that isn't a railroad. The DM set up the environment without knowing what the player was going to do or not do.

And? That doesn't change the fact that the GM authored the fiction that is now dictating the outcome of the player's declared action for his/her PC.

The unknown in real life equates to backstory in an RPG. Both are unknown and can cause automatic failure. Neither remove agency as I have full control over my actions in both instances.

Upthread you got angry when I suggested that you don't distinguish between real life and fantasy. But here you are, again, not making the distinction.

Real life is not a game. The world I walk through in real life was not authored for game purposes.

RPGing is a game. Like other games, it involves participants who make moves. You are describing a game in which the GM makes moves - the authoring of unrevealed backstory - which lead to the result that other participants' moves automatically fail, for reasons that haven't been revealed to them.

That has a bearing on their agency. And it certainly has a bearing on their agency in respect of the shared fiction, which is the particular version of agency I'm talking about.

Success or failure is irrelevant to agency. Only whether or not the player has full control over the PCs actions involves agency.

Success or failure is irrelevant to agency. Agency is control over the actions of the PC. Not whether the PC can succeed or not.

You can assert these things. That doesn't make them so. I am - clearly, unequivocally, and repeatedly - talking primarily about player agency over the content of the shared fiction. If the player has no capacity to change that by making a move, then s/he lacks agency in respect of it. You may not care about such agency. I do. It's the most important thing for me in playing RPGs. You're not going to change that fact about me by telling me that you don't like it!

 

[pemerton]

there is a lot of coined jargon being used in this discussion that I think obscures the points people are making and adds confusion rather than clarity (I am sure some posters find the terminology they are using but my guess is 90% of posters just find it makes peoples' points difficult to understand).

It's a 2000+ post thread. You've just posted that you're not going to read it all. That's fair enough, but I think the flipside of that is that it might take some extra effort to get up to speed.

Again, people clearly are using this word in two different ways. Rather than fight over the meaning of a single term (which you are both using differently), just realize one of you is talking about the freedom of the player to make choices about what their character attempts in the world and one is talking (I am assuming) more about the ability of the character to shape the world or shape the story. These are very different approaches to play that both invoke character agency in different ways

I am talking about the capacity of a player to affect the content of the shared fiction. That's it.

In a game in which the GM adjudicates action resolution by reference to unrevealed elements of framing ("hidden backstory") the player has less of that than otherwise.

It may well be true that other RPGers don't care about that particular form of player agency. Obviously that's their prerogative. But it's a real thing, and it's something I care about. And it's the reason I don't like the role of hidden backstory as it has frequently been used in RPGing (especially in the standard 2nd ed AD&D style). Telling me that in other games, players are satisfied with the ability to choose their PCs' action declarations isn't going to affect my preferences. All it does it make me wonder what the point of emphasising that sort of agency is - are their really people who "play" RPGs but aren't allowed to declare actions for their PCs? What would the point of that be?

 

[Maxperson]

And? That doesn't change the fact that the GM authored the fiction that is now dictating the outcome of the player's declared action for his/her PC.

So what. All that means is that it's not your style of play. It doesn't make it a railroad, and it doesn't remove player agency.

Upthread you got angry when I suggested that you don't distinguish between real life and fantasy. But here you are, again, not making the distinction.

Real life is not a game. The world I walk through in real life was not authored for game purposes.

The two instances directly equate. If not knowing about something in real life doesn't negate my personal agency when acting, not knowing about something in a game doesn't remove my player agency when I have my PC take an action.

RPGing is a game. Like other games, it involves participants who make moves. You are describing a game in which the GM makes moves - the authoring of unrevealed backstory - which lead to the result that other participants' moves automatically fail, for reasons that haven't been revealed to them.

Again...

So what. All that means is that it's not your style of play. It doesn't make it a railroad, and it doesn't remove player agency.

That has a bearing on their agency. And it certainly has a bearing on their agency in respect of the shared fiction, which is the particular version of agency I'm talking about.

No it doesn't. Their player agency is completely unimpeded since their character is free to act however the player wishes. It only impedes YOUR PLAYSTYLE and nothing more.

You can assert these things. That doesn't make them so. I am - clearly, unequivocally, and repeatedly - talking primarily about player agency over the content of the shared fiction. If the player has no capacity to change that by making a move, then s/he lacks agency in respect of it. You may not care about such agency. I do. It's the most important thing for me in playing RPGs. You're not going to change that fact about me by telling me that you don't like it!

I completely get that you are talking about your redefinition(which really just redefines agency to mean "my playstyle"). So if I were to accept that there are two definitions, then player agency in my game is completely unimpeded since I am not using your definition. If your definition is wrong, then player agency in my game is completely unimpeded. Either way player agency in my game is completely unimpeded.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's a 2000+ post thread. You've just posted that you're not going to read it all. That's fair enough, but I think the flipside of that is that it might take some extra effort to get up to speed.

I am talking about the capacity of a player to affect the content of the shared fiction. That's it.

In a game in which the GM adjudicates action resolution by reference to unrevealed elements of framing ("hidden backstory") the player has less of that than otherwise.

It may well be true that other RPGers don't care about that particular form of player agency. Obviously that's their prerogative. But it's a real thing, and it's something I care about. And it's the reason I don't like the role of hidden backstory as it has frequently been used in RPGing (especially in the standard 2nd ed AD&D style). Telling me that in other games, players are satisfied with the ability to choose their PCs' action declarations isn't going to affect my preferences. All it does it make me wonder what the point of emphasising that sort of agency is - are their really people who "play" RPGs but aren't allowed to declare actions for their PCs? What would the point of that be?

I am not suspicious of the way you enjoy play (if this is the kind of agency you like fine); why are you suspicious of other peoples' enjoyment of play?

And again, I think this conversation would be a lot easier if you translated these concepts into plain English. Everything you say, I have to filter through multiple pieces of jargon that tend to be used very inconsistently across the internet. I am sure you find these terms useful for your own understanding. Personally I find they make understanding the precise meaning of your statements very foggy.

I honestly don't know why you find it hard to believe people would find enjoyment and a sense of freedom to be able to try doing whatever they want in a game (even if they have no control over the world itself). It seems like you are trying to undermine that style of play to advance your own.

Personally I think the gaming world is much better off when people have an enormous table of choices to select from (rather than people trying to argue away styles that are not their own---and you are very good at arguing, but at the end of the day, actual table play, not rhetoric, is what persuades people).