What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Bedrockgames]

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?

In most games I play in, PCs are always able to declare what they try to do. They are not usually allowed to do things like declare outcomes (if that is what you are describing). I have played in games where people can affect things like that. But in most groups, the outcomes of a declared attempt are usually handled by the dice and GM. This isn't anything shocking or difficult to understand. It is just how games typically get played. If you have another approach, that is totally cool. But again, I feel like your attitude towards people who play different is somewhat sneering and doesn't make people that curious about what you are advocating. I think few people take issue with your state play style preference, it is the little jabs you throw in that cast suspicion on traditional play styles that turns folks off (I have posted here in a while, but I remember you banging this drum from way back when).

 

[hawkeyefan]

1000 years ago a wildmage had an unusual wild surge at that location. The locals all know about the force field. The PCs, don't though. The ditch is only 100 yards long, so it's not as if the PCs have to go past it. I would have no way of knowing that one of the players might decide to jump the ditch, rather than just walk through it, or if they will even go to the ditch. It's simply interesting backstory that they might encounter.

My desire has nothing to do with it, as I have no desire for either success or failure in this instance.

Let’s not add details to the example. I can just as easily add details that would suit my purposes.

Instead, let’s just work with the original example. Based on that, do you not understand the criticism?

Are you really telling me that things that are unknown and found out about the hard way are all "gotcha" moments? If you are, I totally disagree with that. If you aren't, there's no reason to think this is a gotcha moment based on what I've said here.

No, that’s not what I said. I said that the scenario as described seem to serve no other purpose than to be a gotcha moment. Perhaps it could serve some other purpose depending on other relevant details, like your bit above about the wild mage.

I generally don’t like such “gotcha” moments. I think if you’re going to have something like that, then you need to give the players a chance to discover it or be aware that such bizarre effects might exist.

Agency is the ability to take whatever actions you wish for your PC(within the bounds of the rules) without those actions being railroaded. Nobody forced the PC to jump the ditch. That was purely the player's decision and absolutely nothing interfered with that decision, or the resulting attempt to jump the ditch. The player had full agency over his character at that point. The narration of failure due to hitting an invisible wall does not affect that.

Obviously your definition varies. But hasn’t the alternate view of agency been made clear? The lack of even a chance at success based solely on what the DM has decided ahead of time is what’s being cited. Call it agency or something else, do you get the complaint?

The concern is about the play experience more than preserving the DM’s predetermined lore. What’s more important, that the player be able to succeed orfail based on his decisions, or that a wild mage lived in the area 1,000 years ago? Different people will answer that question differently, but I don’t really see how choosing one answer means you cannot understand the other one.

For me, I don’t think I’d consider every possible example of this as a negative. I’m sure we could come up with examples of predetermined lore that I would prefer remain intact. But with the example given, to let it play out as described, I would need a really compelling reason for the forcefield to be there.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

This simply isn't true, though. Let's go with there are two definitions of agency. I only see two ways that your statement can be true, the first is if you are at my game trying to use your playstyle in it, which is impossible since my playstyle is the only one allowed in my game. If your definition of agency isn't being used in my game, then my game doesn't have less agency than yours. It just has an equal amount(full agency) of the type that my game uses. The second way is if I'm trying to play with my playstyle in your game, which also(I assume) isn't going to be allowed. Other than those two things which will simply never happen, agency is 100% in both of our games.

 

[Maxperson]

Let’s not add details to the example. I can just as easily add details that would suit my purposes.

Instead, let’s just work with the original example. Based on that, do you not understand the criticism?

You asked me what else could be causing that than DM desire, so I provided a cause. If you don't wish to use that cause, and want to just go with the original example, then you need to accept that I also said that it wasn't DM desire, because I don't take actions on my personal desires to thwart players.

No, that’s not what I said. I said that the scenario as described seem to serve no other purpose than to be a gotcha moment. Perhaps it could serve some other purpose depending on other relevant details, like your bit above about the wild mage.

The scenario above also didn't involve DM desire since I said it didn't, but you didn't accept that. The detail was only added afterward since you asked me what else it could be, and because in my game there would be some sort of reason for the wall of force to be there. I didn't expect that you would pick and choose from the scenario I provided and just toss out the part where I said that there was no DM desire involved, so I didn't think I needed more detail in that post.

I generally don’t like such “gotcha” moments. I think if you’re going to have something like that, then you need to give the players a chance to discover it or be aware that such bizarre effects might exist.

As I said in another recent post. A gotcha has to be something severe, like the medusa example or something else major. A bit of humor as we have a Wile E. Coyote moment at a ditch isn't a gotcha, and that's assuming that there is no way to discover it prior to the leap, which there usually is.

Obviously your definition varies. But hasn’t the alternate view of agency been made clear? The lack of even a chance at success based solely on what the DM has decided ahead of time is what’s being cited. Call it agency or something else, do you get the complaint?

As I am pointing out to @pemerton right now, it's an irrelevant complaint as the only way it is even remotely an issue is if the two definitions are being mixed in a single game, which just won't happen. Otherwise, agency is 100% in both playstyles and it's kinda useless in my opinion to complain about something happening in someone else's game, and which has no bearing on either you or your game.

It's false to say that my way has less agency than @pemerton's way, as the two aren't in a position to be used together. It's an apples and oranges situation.

The concern is about the play experience more than preserving the DM’s predetermined lore. What’s more important, that the player be able to succeed orfail based on his decisions, or that a wild mage lived in the area 1,000 years ago? Different people will answer that question differently, but I don’t really see how choosing one answer means you cannot understand the other one.

Objectively? Neither one. Subjectively? It's not really relevant here since we aren't playing in each others games AND trying to mix the definitions. Were I to play in @pemerton's game, I would do my best to play in his playstyle with his definition, since I would be being an asshat if I went to a game like that and tried to play my way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

I mean, why put the forcefield there in the first place other than to thwart a PC attempting the jump? What other reason could it possobly be there?

And why not simply remove it at the time of play? If I was DMing a published module and I came across this situation, I’d probably change it. It’s a “gotcha” moment and I don’t see the point of it.

The point of it is to channel the characters, and thus the players, into solving the problem via some specific set of actions, which is exactly what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] objects to. Note that there is a somewhat subtle point here. Pemerton doesn't object to the existence of only certain 'puzzle solving steps' and not others, he objects to the whole forced characterization of the situation AS A PUZZLE. His objection is to the limits on the player's agency to direct the fiction into other 'channels', to alter its thematic significance in order to align with the interests of the player instead of the GM.

Both Max and Pemerton (and I assume all of us here) are perfectly OK with the existence of 'fictional positioning' creating constraints on the options available, but Pemerton only sees those as valid when they are effectively chosen by the player's engagement with those elements. For Max its a matter of what the GM wants to impose, which is different. Pemerton, as a GM, will ALWAYS frame the next scene in a way that reflects what was communicated by the players as their current agenda (not the character's agenda, the players). By not adhering to such a rule assiduously and by substituting hidden elements of backstory as a framing tool, in at least some cases, Max diverges from Pemerton's techniques of play.

I don’t know if I entirely agree with that. Agency is the ability to succeed or fail on one’s own. A character who has agency in a story is able to determine their own fate, for good or ill. Characters who don’t have agency have their fates decided by others.

So a character attempting to jump the ditch is destined to fail through no fault of his or her own. They are destined to fail because of the DM.

Perhaps if there was some choice involved on the part of the character...or if there was some reasonable chance to somehow notice the forcefield....but without additional factors like that, it seems like a removal of agency.

Well, it gets murky because Pemerton might well have such a forcefield, on the understanding that the player desires to find solutions to such obstacles, as well as some confluence of verisimilitude, genre logic, pacing, etc. Both of them might admit to a variety of solutions to the problem of the forcefield. In both cases this might be characterized as 'puzzle solving'. In Max's case that would be simply because he considers an obstacle of this type 'worthy', that it forms a 'wall in the maze', the circumventing of which establishes player skill and, by its value as an obstacle, tension.

Pemerton might allow for a puzzle solving solution to the forcefield as a way of explicating a character's portrayal as a puzzle solver (maybe a McGyvver type character for instance). He might instead admit of a different solution, say firing a blaster at the forcefield, which might be a highly reckless action (IE Dune where it could provoke something similar to a nuclear explosion). That would be a choice where recklessness is a topic being explored perhaps. Which of these solutions is presented would depend on what the player wants. In fact it could be decided on the spot by the player via his action declarations (analogous to the oft-presented searching for a secret door giving it a chance to exist example).

It is murky simply because you cannot determine by pure examination of the resultant narrative what the process of play was. This is why Pemerton asserts that you cannot analyze RPGs based on 'results'. You have to take into account process.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

"Fourth Core" is, I presume, a 3rd-party publisher of 4e material? (never heard of them before now)

And what's that module called, in case I ever stumble across it?

It was a set of modules and some alternate thematics and adventure design concepts for 4th Edition which was put forward by an informal group of people online about 8 years ago now (well before Essentials was released IIRC, so 2009/10 timeframe).

The concept was to create a 'player test of skill' type of Gygaxian play using 4e. Think of the essence of the original Tomb of Horrors (an essentially unsurvivable dungeon with only a technically present chance of solving it, but no realistic possibility of doing so) but translated to 4e rules. WotC then produced its own 4e 'Tomb of Horrors', which was a much more mild version of the idea (and was only ever available as a GM reward for people who ran Encounters games IIRC).

The only reference of any kind I have found to Fourth Core online is here https://knowledgechecks.wordpress.com/category/fourth-core/ which is a play report. It looks like this adventure is still available here https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/200066/SND01-Revenge-of-the-Iron-Lich (and its free, all Fourth Core stuff AFAIK was free). The original level 1 adventure that I was referring to I don't recall the exact name of, and I haven't been able to find a link to it. Seems that pretty much all of this stuff has vanished into the mists of time.

Ah, here it is, also on drivethroughrpg.com http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/200064/C1-Crucible-of-the-Gods

Honestly, I wasn't that taken with the idea, it seems rather trivially easy to devise obnoxiously deadly material, and kind of felt like a cop-out to me. Like the GM who can't create tension is more varied and sophisticated ways has to resort to this? Still, anything can be fun in measure and its definitely both an amusing 'beer & pretzels' sort of adventuring, and an illustration of the point that deadliness isn't a system attribute (at least not in 4e's case).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The only reason I've fought so hard over the definition here, is that @pemerton and @AbdulAlhazred have been redefining player agency in order to then say that their style gives players greater agency @AbdulAlhazred) or is how players get agency, implying that my style removes agency altogether @pemerton). 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.

What I said was that players have, in my games, the same agency they have in YOUR games, AND THEN SOME, which is clearly true since they have additional options. Pemerton stated that your players lacked agency, and qualified that with the understanding that it was with respect to what the content of the fiction was (IE what options where available to players in given fictional situations). Frankly I think that he and I are saying nearly the same thing (in a sort of "a bonus is just a mirror image of a penalty" sort of way).

In response you then construed some dialog we provided as a game example (finding some giants) as some sort of 'Story Now is railroading' and made some, frankly wild and ludicrous, claims that our entire technique of play is a 'railroad' (talk about abuse of terminology!). All in an attempt to 'win' some sort of point that giving people less options is actually 'more agency'. I found it tediously obtuse and of no help in advancing the underlying discussion, although we managed to have a couple tangents where some clarity seemed to have emerged. Sadly you went right back to where you were at the start a couple pages later.

I find it nothing short of vastly amusing an ironic when you then come back and complain about terminology and try to make it sound like it was other people who abused words.

It is true that any and all of us could be, and sometimes are, guilty of being unclear or fail to appreciate some point at some stage in a discussion. For my part I generally adapt my terms, or qualify them, when I see that happening. I expect other posters to at least TRY to do the same.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You asked me what else could be causing that than DM desire, so I provided a cause. If you don't wish to use that cause, and want to just go with the original example, then you need to accept that I also said that it wasn't DM desire, because I don't take actions on my personal desires to thwart players.

I’m pointing out how your original post could have been construed. In the way that you originally described it, it certainly seemed to amount to nothing more than a gotcha by the DM. So, without adding later comments into it, look at the scenario as described and then try and see if you can understand some of the responses.

Adding comments afterward may clarify things, but I was trying to explain to you why your post was taken the way it was when you made it.

The scenario above also didn't involve DM desire since I said it didn't, but you didn't accept that. The detail was only added afterward since you asked me what else it could be, and because in my game there would be some sort of reason for the wall of force to be there. I didn't expect that you would pick and choose from the scenario I provided and just toss out the part where I said that there was no DM desire involved, so I didn't think I needed more detail in that post.

It’s not that I didn’t accept it. It’s that there was nothing else in the initial description that would serve as a reasonable explanation for why it happened. I was explaining how your post could be perceived.

You have since pointed out the backstory about the wild mage, and also how inconsequential the failed leap is. I assumed there was a check being made and some kind of consequence, that’s why I would have taken issue with it. But given that it’s such a minor occurrence just being used to add flavor, then I wouldn’t worry about it.

As I said in another recent post. A gotcha has to be something severe, like the medusa example or something else major. A bit of humor as we have a Wile E. Coyote moment at a ditch isn't a gotcha, and that's assuming that there is no way to discover it prior to the leap, which there usually is.

Well, why does a gotcha moment have to be severe? I mean, I get how the scenario as you’ve gone on to elaborate has virtually no consequence, so it’s not a big deal, but what if the ditch was a bit larger and a maybe a bit of falling damage was involved? Even such a small consequence, to me, would constitute a gotcha by the DM.

As I am pointing out to @pemerton right now, it's an irrelevant complaint as the only way it is even remotely an issue is if the two definitions are being mixed in a single game, which just won't happen. Otherwise, agency is 100% in both playstyles and it's kinda useless in my opinion to complain about something happening in someone else's game, and which has no bearing on either you or your game.

It's false to say that my way has less agency than @pemerton's way, as the two aren't in a position to be used together. It's an apples and oranges situation.

I don’t think it’s irrelevant for someone to poibt out examples of why they do or don’t prefer a certain playstyle in a thread that’s about exactly that.

Objectively? Neither one. Subjectively? It's not really relevant here since we aren't playing in each others games AND trying to mix the definitions. Were I to play in @pemerton's game, I would do my best to play in his playstyle with his definition, since I would be being an asshat if I went to a game like that and tried to play my way.

Subjectivity is all that’s in question, man.

Look....I’m not saying anything you do in your game is wrong. I really was just hoping to step in as a more “neutral party” to explain the point that was being made because it was clear to me, but was obviously not clear to you. You gave an example that seemed to fit exactly the kind of thing pemerton doesn’t like. Turns out that was only the case because your example was inconplete when first posted....okay fine.

But you can’t fault anyone who responded to your incomplete example.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Look....I’m not saying anything you do in your game is wrong. I really was just hoping to step in as a more “neutral party” to explain the point that was being made because it was clear to me, but was obviously not clear to you. You gave an example that seemed to fit exactly the kind of thing pemerton doesn’t like. Turns out that was only the case because your example was inconplete when first posted....okay fine.

But you can’t fault anyone who responded to your incomplete example.

It was pretty obvious what he was saying in the example. I think what is going on is very strict and literal readings, with very little charity. I pretty much got immediately what he was talking about.

 

[Lanefan]

Ah, here it is, also on drivethroughrpg.com http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/200064/C1-Crucible-of-the-Gods

Honestly, I wasn't that taken with the idea, it seems rather trivially easy to devise obnoxiously deadly material, and kind of felt like a cop-out to me. Like the GM who can't create tension is more varied and sophisticated ways has to resort to this? Still, anything can be fun in measure and its definitely both an amusing 'beer & pretzels' sort of adventuring, and an illustration of the point that deadliness isn't a system attribute (at least not in 4e's case).

Thanks!

I'm curious as to whether it might be something I could convert for my game - thus far my experiences with converting 4e modules have been, while not awful, certainly less than brilliant; and something written form a different "direction" might be better. Or worse.

And yes, a DM in any system can dial the lethality and danger level up or down. What I look at for comparison purposes is how it appears as written - what the RAW say.

For example, it's pretty clear that instant death at 0 h.p. in a system where you don't get many h.p. (e.g. 0e or Basic D&D) is likely to be much more common than in a system where you get multiple rounds of saves to avoid it during which time you can be cured up from a distance (e.g. 4e or 5e D&D) and where you almost certainly started with relatively more h.p. in the first place. Further, early D&D editions (pre-3e) include level draining and a relatively good chance of losing magic items now and then, both of which have been either removed or drastically scaled back in the newer version (post 3x - 3x/PF itself falls kind of in the middle here).

Edit to add: and these differences in design/rules are inevitably going to affect the play style at the table. which is my point.

Lanefan