What is *worldbuilding* for?

Ovinomancer said:

Okay, but please explain how one type of note doesn't constrain the DM but another type does? Again, this reads like special pleading: this thing I prep isn't that kind of thing that's prepped, the one that constrains you.

If I have a note that the map is in the study, how is that any more or less constraining than an encounter map of the study?

Not trying to be obtuse here, I really don't understand what the point being made here is.

Click to expand...

IMO it's not the material itself, it's all about the referee attitude to that material. Some referees feel bound by some or all of their prepared backstory, even the unrevealed material, and may use it for adjudication purposes. Others don't and are willing to modify or throw away prep, even expect to modify and customise the material to the players who end up encountering it. The more fluid the unrevealed material, the less constraining it is and the less likely that player ambitions will be stymied by hidden backstory they may never discover.

Is unrevealed prep totally binding on the referee, somewhat binding, merely guidelines, or entirely expendable? Different referees have different opinions.

Ovinomancer said:

Okay, but please explain how one type of note doesn't constrain the DM but another type does? Again, this reads like special pleading: this thing I prep isn't that kind of thing that's prepped, the one that constrains you.

If I have a note that the map is in the study, how is that any more or less constraining than an encounter map of the study?

Not trying to be obtuse here, I really don't understand what the point being made here is.

Click to expand...

I'm very pressed for time for the next few days and so don't have time for a fuller response (but didn't want to leave this unaddressed), yet what Aenghus says above are pretty much my thoughts on the matter.

Aenghus said:

IMO it's not the material itself, it's all about the referee attitude to that material. Some referees feel bound by some or all of their prepared backstory, even the unrevealed material, and may use it for adjudication purposes. Others don't and are willing to modify or throw away prep, even expect to modify and customise the material to the players who end up encountering it. The more fluid the unrevealed material, the less constraining it is and the less likely that player ambitions will be stymied by hidden backstory they may never discover.

Is unrevealed prep totally binding on the referee, somewhat binding, merely guidelines, or entirely expendable? Different referees have different opinions.

Click to expand...

So it's like porn, you know it when you see it?

I don't disagree, but it doesn't answer the question the OP is asking. I'm trying to understand what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] thinks.

darkbard said:

I'm very pressed for time for the next few days and so don't have time for a fuller response (but didn't want to leave this unaddressed), yet what Aenghus says above are pretty much my thoughts on the matter.

Click to expand...

So, your answer to the OP would be "depends?"

pemerton said:

As the OP says, there are different approaches to RPGing. Gygaxian D&D is what you call "hidden design" - I personally find the idea of mazes and puzzles more a better way to try to explain the play of it, but that's probably a tangential matter.

Click to expand...

OK to here.

I also think that that style of play has been a minority approach in the hobby at least since 1985 or thereabouts, and maybe even before then. There are other ways of RPGing - they were clearly emerging in the late 70s, because Lewis Pulsipher wrote essays explaining why he preferred what you call the "hidden design" approach and what he called the "wargame" approach.

Classic Traveller was published in 1977, Runequest in 1978.

Click to expand...

They were; and they were niche within the hobby then and - along with many similar systems published since - are niche within the hobby now.

Hidden-design play has been the default (and majority) approach since Day 1. As evidence one could argue that much of 4e's design was based on a perception that this was/is not the case - and look how well that turned out.

There's two sources of data - neither perfect, but they're all we've got - to back this assertion. First, the data that's posted on EnWorld now and then regarding what proportion of play comes from which different game systems in whatever online site(s) get surveyed. Play in hidden-design systems - of which 5e is one and Pathfinder is another - hugely outnumbers play in open-design* systems.

The second data source is not so much what RPG events get run at major cons but how popular they are and-or how easy/hard it is to find a seat in one. I believe GenCon keeps data on such things; going just from memory Call of Cthulhu and old-school (0-1-2e) D&D are among the hardest to find a spot in, while 4e seats go begging. But I could be wrong by now - last GenCon for me was 2016 and I've not seen any info from 2017 (haven't even looked for it, to be honest).

* - open-design as a term seems like a good enough opposite to hidden-design for these purposes.

So that's my take on signs of divergence from your preferred approach around 40 years ago.

Click to expand...

Though I'll not deny for a second that there was divergence almost immediately and that some of that divergence bent toward open-design systems, I'll posit that such divergence then merely established a niche within the hobby; and that - with the exception of a few years when 4e was a big thing and despite your best efforts here - those open-design systems have remained in that niche ever since.

For what it's worth, I ... haven't been to a convention for many years.

Click to expand...

An all-hands con* - e.g. GenCon; I don't know if Australia has an equivalent - is the best place to get a sense of what's going on in both the mainstream and in (some of) the niches. It can be a serious eye-opener.

* - in contrast to a single-vendor con e.g. PaizoCon where it's all Paizo all the time and most other games aren't represented much at all.

Lanefan

I like to think I play the Gygaxian way for the most part when I play. I admit I haven't played in a while do to a move and a very intense job that uses up most of my mental energy.

To me, the world is setting information for the "sandbox". It's like a spotlight that is brightest at it's center point which is where the characters are starting out their adventures. Things gradually get a little less designed as you get farther from the center of the spotlight. I also know most of the movers and shakers in the world at this level. I know high level trade routes etc..

I almost always have all the details at the national level. I know the Kings, princes, and Emperor's of the campaign setting (which may only be a continent and not an entire world). I know the counties, wards, towns, and districts of the nation the players are in or if at the edge, I know that nation and the surrounding wildlands. I know not only the movers and shakers but I know most of the significant people at this level. I have a good bit of details about the various towns and cities though I may not have an exact map. I probably do have a high level map at minimum.

Then there is the adventuring area, the true sandbox. That area I have detailed out in great detail even to the Homlet detail. I know tons of the people and their backstories. I know all kinds of villains that threaten life in this place. I know how trade works and what impacts this area. My dungeons are built upon all these ideas including the history of the area. Not every dungeon is an underground closed system but I have those. They are a lot of fun.

I see active adventuring as a contest of skill. The players work together as a team to overcome challenges. They try to use strategy, discipline, and preparation to avoid disaster. The rewards are power and money. The fun of these dungeons is how they are linked to the history and surrounding area. When you overcome and "win" a dungeon you find out a little bit more about the world. So I desire players who want to peel the onion so to speak and discover the world and what underlies it. During non-active campaign time, the players will use their gold and power to influence the world. This happens more as players progress from lower levels to higher levels.

Just my take. I don't think my style is at all defunct.

I must say I'm not really happy at this point with any of the versions of D&D. 5e did a lot of things right though stylistically and moved closer to what I want. It's still not the game I really want though. So I've been working on my own. I could try to hack 5e but I feel it would be just as much work. I'm sure I will be "informed" by all the roleplaying games I know.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION],
I think that roleplaying is such a broad concept that it has become almost worthless as a description of anything beyond a game where people cooperatively play something fantasy themed.

I'd love better all around definition. I'd say if you and players are having fun playing the game then you are doing it right. So we should stop being judgmental. Who can argue that if one player likes one style and enjoys it more that that style isn't what's best for him or her. I tire of being told that if I'd just embrace someone elses style that I'd stop liking mine as much. I think we all have our own tastes. What is unfortunately is that we often let our own disdain for the other side leak out. Who really cares what other people are doing? Perhaps it matters when choosing a roleplaying game to choose one that fits your style well. I'd say the world is big enough for us all to have a game we like and that fits our needs.

I fought hard during the development of 5e to sway the designers my way. I think that is fair for anyone to do. It's over now though. The game is out and it ain't changing significantly until 6e. Maybe never if Mike Mearls is to be believed. I decided to make my own game and take from 5e as opposed to use 5e and rip out what I don't like. Whenever you tell people you are playing a houseruled version of 5e you already have problems. It's far easier to say you are playing a game and here are the rules. If they resemble 5e that is a coincidence.

I find it interesting that both "camps" in this debate seem insistent on proving the other camp is not having fun. Aren't we all having fun playing? Why would we continue? It's clear Pemerton and Lanefan that you both would not enjoy the other's campaign. My own tastes probably run to Lanefan's style more than Pemerton's but I don't doubt he is enjoying himself. I think any RPG can be used either way.

Are you both fighting to have the other's style of play declared wrong? What is the end game here?

Pemerton, I do think you are wrong in saying players have no agency in my style of game. If the DM is fair and neutral, I see plenty of agency for the players. They can't change the game world except through the abilities of the characters but that is still agency. Otherwise you'd have to argue I have no agency in the real world. It's the same sort of agency and appeals to people who want that style of game.

I also think "classical" D&D as you call it is still a very popular way to play. It's hardly antiquated. I don't doubt though that your style has grown significantly from the early days.

I think that this thread has been pretty much a standard debate. Pemerton and Lanefan are trying to defend their individual styles, but there is no real hostility. Neither one is claiming that the other one is playing wrong. For the most part, this thread has been civil, and its interesting learning about other people's preferred style of play.

I enjoyed your post, too, Emerikol. It's cool how many different approaches there are to the hobby, and how some players stick to one style, and others enjoy a variety. I don't really like dungeons, and am heavy on narrative. I get pemerton' s style but not exclusively.