What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

What if there are other avenues of success that the Players/PCs see? Are they free to engage in those, or do they now have to follow he situation you set up that forces those choices?

I don't think I understand the question. When you ask "are they free to engage in those", are you asking about the scope of permissible action declarations? In which case it will depend on the details of the action in question, and whether the fictional positioning supports them.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "follow the situation you set up that forces those choices." When Xanthos says to Xialath, "Vecna and I are going to conquer Rel Astra in the name of the Great Kingdom. If you join with us, we'll make sure you're awarded a magistracy once Rel Astra is ours," Xialath has to do something in response. The obvious possibilities are to agree to join with them in exchange for the prize (as happened in my game), or to refuse the offer (in which case the PCs presumably find themselves at war - not unheard of in that campaign). There's also scope to try and negotiate for some change in the offer (and maybe Xialath did extract additional concessions - I don't remember all the details anymore).

But Xialath's player doesn't have any authority to just stipulate that Xanthos has not asked that question; or that Vecna is not, in fact, planning an assault on Rel Astra.

framing scenes can also limit player agency. Would you agree with that? My understanding of the term is that it’s the GM trying to force a decision by a player, right? To go where the action is. Here’s the situation, what do you do?

Well, here's a summary of the "standard narraivistic model":

One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . . [O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory . . . the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character . . .​

In contrast to the GM, the player's role "is simple advocacy", that is, "they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background." When presented with a situation, "[t]he player is ready . . . as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character."

The example under discussion earlier in this post is a bit more complex than that, because the pressure on Xialath's player is coming not just from the GM component of the framing (Vecna's attack on Rel Astra) but another player's contribution via that player's PC (Xialath can have a magistracy if he goes along with the attack). I think this sort of thing is not that uncommon in RPGing.

But in any event, the player built a character with certain dramatic needs. Now those are being engaged. Where is the limit on agency?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is decidedly not what I was talking about. It's not even, IMO, world building. Your players are simply drinking larger helpings from the broth you have already prepared: Vecna being a real force within the gameworld (as opposed to an existential plot device) and the things she wants to do. The rest of these things are in-character actions that affect the world around them. I don't believe I've ever argued against that. I'm pretty sure I've argued for that over several posts. My only caveat was that the base world is initially presented by the DM, who therefore retains primary authorship over what is or isn't possible. IE: if Vecna did not exist in your campaign world, then her mission to conquer Rel Astra would not exist, and therefore players could not make the choice to ally with her in that endevour.

What I was talking about was more along the lines of if you had created a world wherein Great Kingdom and Rel Astra were at odds for *reasons* and one of your players decided that reason should be Vecna and that she was aiding Great Kingdom against Rel Astra because she wanted to conquer the latter.

That's the sort of communal authorship I was talking about.

All I see in your example is a player playing the game with the materials they had available to them. There's no authorship there. Certainly these are big moves within the game, but they're not really authoring anything, they're just swinging the pendelum that you the DM had already written to be flexible in the direction they're interested in.

Its been 25 years since I perused my copy of WoG, so I don't remember exactly what was established by Gygax about The Great Kingdom WRT Vecna or if this was all generated in the course of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s game, but IN MY GAMES at least the existence of Vecna and his goals would only be introduced as a factor in response to a player's establishment of a goal (as a player) and a consequent dramatic need of a character (IE the player wants to play conquest of the world and the character thus is established as desiring to conquer Rel Astra for whatever reasons). Subsequent to that the player would presumably desire to have her character discover a way to effectuate this narrative in play, which would lead to the establishment of Vecna as an avenue (and here the DM chooses to establish an avenue which threatens the character by being an agency of evil, thus thrusting the character onto the horns of a moral dilemma).

What I'm saying is, I don't think this is an example of World Building particularly. It MAY be taking some advantage of elements of a pre-existing setting in order to achieve dramatic ends, but unless I'm badly mistaken no such existing content would stand as a barrier to using the techniques of play Pemerton is espousing. Certainly no such element which hasn't been established actively in play would be treated as 'canonical' and thus established in fiction and bound to be respected as such.

I'd note that playing in your own highly persistent world can create a bit of an issue here. Over decades MANY facts have been established during different story arcs/campaigns within this one fictional setting. MANY of them, most even, don't relate to anyone actively playing in that setting. Are they established? I mean, I amuse myself by continuing to build on things authored in earlier fictions, but I have the same issue as any GM engaged in World Building, what is the actual purpose of that material in game terms? I find the topic interesting to some degree for this reason...

 

[pemerton]

there IS NO CAUSAL PROCESS WITHIN THE FICTION. The fact is no such person as Sherlock Holmes, no person with characteristics similar to him, can exist in the real world. This isn't even limited by just ordinary physical constraints (IE nobody can focus their attention well enough or remember things so reliably as to perform the feats attributed to him). It extends to LOGICAL POSSIBILITY as well, fiction need not even abide by the basic tenants of logic. Things can both exist and not exist, be in two places at once, have mutually exclusive characteristics, etc. within fiction. Not only that, but this HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. Mostly we don't notice. We suspend disbelief and we simply accept the fiction's conceits as given.

There's nothing remarkable about this when we're talking about a fixed passive form of story where the reader simply participates by reading and imagining what is told by the author. However, when we get into RPG THEORY then its VERY VERY IMPORTANT to understand this! What it means is that the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is who, by rule/convention/whatever, is able to assert elements of the fiction. There is no 'fictional causation', it doesn't exist, it is, at best, a convention to pretend that it exists, and that only certain participants are bound by it. It is this convention, the practice of RPG game play, which is the subject of RPG game theory, which is what we are discussing here.

Every time people talk about what is 'in the fiction' except as it pertains to how they will relate it to play procedures, is just not significant. What is significant is 'what are those procedures and how do they work?' In particular how does pre-authoring content work, why is it done, and what effect does it have on play processes? (since that was the question of the OP).

Agreed. If you're still working through the past 50-100 posts, you may come across one of mine that talks about contradictions in fiction.

I don't know about your super-mathematician PC, but mine has the power to square a circle with compass and ruler! And if there is some downtime, spends it drawing up plans for ever-cheaper-to-build perpetual motion machines.

Fictional causation is interesting only for the same reason any other fiction is interesting: it's part of the story.

 

[pemerton]

I amuse myself by continuing to build on things authored in earlier fictions, but I have the same issue as any GM engaged in World Building, what is the actual purpose of that material in game terms?

I think the ultimate answer is "none", isn't it?

I have little essays I wrote on the theology of the main religion in my GH game (a fairly elaborate variation on St Cuthbert, Pholtus, Tritherion and others as branches of a monotheistic religion). What was the point? Self-amusement. Taking my readings on Christology and metaphysics out for a bit of a spin. Some of the political differences between branches of the church turned out to matter in play, but I don't think the intricacies of the the theology ever came up!

On the flip side: in my 4e game it is well-established that there are theological and doctrinal divisions among adherents of the Raven Queen, because the paladin PC, who is a Marshall of Letherna, and the ranger/cleric demigod who also serves the Raven Queen, disagree over these things from time to time. I don't know if either player has any real details in mind, but at the table the differences tend to emerge in fairly course-grained ways. But it actually matters to play much more than my essays ever did!

Its been 25 years since I perused my copy of WoG, so I don't remember exactly what was established by Gygax about The Great Kingdom WRT Vecna or if this was all generated in the course of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s game

<snip>

I don't think this is an example of World Building particularly. It MAY be taking some advantage of elements of a pre-existing setting in order to achieve dramatic ends, but unless I'm badly mistaken no such existing content would stand as a barrier to using the techniques of play Pemerton is espousing. Certainly no such element which hasn't been established actively in play would be treated as 'canonical' and thus established in fiction and bound to be respected as such.

All this is true. This is what I was trying to get at when I said that "Vecna isn't the big deal", and in another context it could have been Iuz or Graz'zt or whomever.

Because we're playing D&D there's obviously a certain pleasure in using (recycling?) these old tropes, but they're means to an end, not the ends in themselves. Vecna in my current 4e game is a different being from Vecna in my old RM game (although they both fit the "sinister archlich with ancient secrets" role); Graz'zt was one thing in that RM game, and a different thing playing a different role in my long-running OA game (though in both had six fingers, and was a sinister manipulator with demon servants).

 

[Sunseeker]

To me, it seems that this may be a reason that you're misunderstanding me. (To you, this may be the reason why I don't get what your point is.) Because, far from being irrelevant, the intertwining of player-authored backstories and PC motivations, various elements of the fiction introduced by the GM, and the sbusequent role those play in player action declarations, GM decisions about framing, etc, is at the heart of the game. It's not largely irrelevant - in fact, it's nearly everything in RPGing.

My point is that the GM chose to intertwine those backstories. You could have disregarded them. You have the authority to say "Yes, I am going to pick up on this element of your backstory and include it in the game." or "No, I'm not interested in including this element of your backstory in the larger gameworld." That authority is yours and yours alone. The players do not have the authority to say "We are going to include this element of my backstory in the game." Maybe you let them but this is, to take a political example (since I'm a political scientist, sue me) the fundamental difference between Liberty and Freedom.

You have the authority to give your players certain Liberties. That may mean allowing them to say "We are going to include XYZ from by backstory in the game." but they fundamentally do not have the Freedom to make that declaration on their own. Some systems give the players "Essential Liberties" to author elements of the game in an authoritative manner, some systems (I'd argue the majority of well-known ones) do not. Some systems suggest that players have Fundamental Freedom to author elements of the game, but since we're dealing with rules, we're usually dealing with Liberties, not Freedoms.

But at the end of the day, in most systems, it falls to the DM to grant those Essential Liberties. Most systems favor towards authoritarianism. A few systems explicitly enable a Republic. VERY few systems are Communal.

Maybe it is best surmised as: The GM is playing to what the characters want is not the same as the players authoring the fiction. That is still the GM retaining authorship, they're just outsourcing.

 

[Sunseeker]

And now Immanuel Kant is spinning in his grave.

Ugh. Thanks for making me refresh myself on Kant. Bleh.

 

[pemerton]

And now Immanuel Kant is spinning in his grave.

Ugh. Thanks for making me refresh myself on Kant.

I'd let the Kant reference just go through to the keeper - I'm not the biggest fan (either of the metaphysics or the moral theory); but nothing very central to Kantians seemed to be at issue in this thread.

But now I'm curious - is there some Kantian subtext that I'm missing?

 

[pemerton]

My point is that the GM chose to intertwine those backstories. You could have disregarded them. You have the authority to say "Yes, I am going to pick up on this element of your backstory and include it in the game." or "No, I'm not interested in including this element of your backstory in the larger gameworld." That authority is yours and yours alone.

What you say here isn't true of the game I was running. In fact, its failure to be true was the basis on which most of the players joined the game! They were looking for a game where player choices and signals in PC build and play would matter.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'd let the Kant reference just go through to the keeper - I'm not the biggest fan (either of the metaphysics or the moral theory); but nothing very central to Kantians seemed to be at issue in this thread.

But now I'm curious - is there some Kantian subtext that I'm missing?

Maybe. I admit to being rough on Kant, but I could certainly see a very Kantian take on some of this thread's discussion.

 

[Sunseeker]

What you say here isn't true of the game I was running. In fact, its failure to be true was the basis on which most of the players joined the game! They were looking for a game where player choices and signals in PC build and play would matter.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

I said, again that fundamentally those choices matter because the GM allows them to matter. The GM (you in this context) could have chosen to not allow them to matter. Making those choices matter is within the domain of the GM, not the players (in the majority of systems). Assuming you were playing some form of D&D, then it is absolutely within the domain of the GM and not the players.

Look lets walk through this:
Players come to you, they want to Explore Ancient Ruins.
You, the DM, decide to let them explore some ancient ruins. But you don't have a good idea for which ones, so you solicit ideas from your players.
Your players provide you with ideas, material, or whole APs worth of ruins they could explore.
You, the DM pick through those, perhaps getting votes of approval on which ones the players like the most.

Who had final authorship in this scenario? The DM. All player contributions are filtered through the DM.