What is *worldbuilding* for?

Lanefan said:

Why does the DM get to decide? Because it's the DM's job to set things in place within the dungeon and gameworld - this is part of what makes a DM's role different from that of a player.

Click to expand...

OK, then let's go back to the OP - it asks, what is this allocation of responsibility to the GM for?

In Cortex+, the roll to find the map is an opposed check (against the Doom Pool - if the player succeeds, a Map To XYZ asset is created; if the player fails, then maybe the Doom Pool steps up, or the PC suffers emotional stress in frustation at not finding the map, or whatever other consequence flows from the mechanics of resolution plus the imagnation of the GM). In BW, it is what you call a "passive check" but against a difficulty set by the GM in accordance with the skill descriptions; but that mechanical difference doesn't mean that the GM gets to make the passive check fail automatically just because s/he thought it would be better for the map to be somewhere other than the study.

In other words, (i) there is not only one model for RPG mechanics, and (ii) even when the mechanics are similar (both D&D and BW use checks against a difficulty), that doesn't tell us why it is the GM's job to do the stuff you say.

To be clear: I'm not asserting that there is no answer to the question. But answers that don't take account of the range of ways RPGing works will (necessarily) be incomplete. I mean, obviously setting provides depth - but it doesn't have to be GM authored to do that (witness the various examples I've posted upthread). So a more complete answer adds information eg [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] says that many players don't want to contribute to establishing the backstory, so someone else has to do it; [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] says that he wants the GM to tell him the backstory as part of his process of immersion (to me that seems very similar to being told a story by the GM - I think Mercurius queries that characterisation, but from my point of view I'm still working out why, and also why it's considered pejorative - I went to the pictures recently, and had a story told to me, and that doesn't make me feel offended).
[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] gave some different reasons: GM worldbuilding establishes levers/tools for the players. It makes sense that someone else has to do this, in that being able to just deem your own tools into existence seems a bit cheat-y. To me, that speaks to a style of play much closer to classic dungeoneering, though mabye Nagol would not agree with that.

Lanefan said:

Also, the very term "action resolution" is here a bit misleading. Yes a PC has declared an action, and that action gets resolved...but the resolution of that action only applies to the PC and her immediate surrounds, not to anything static within the rest of the game world.

Click to expand...

Why? And which game are you talking about?

In Classic Traveller (1977 version), the rules set throws required on a player's Streetwise check for a PC to find a shady official willing to sell permits/licences at a good price. That is an action resolution that is not confined to the PC and his/her immediate surrounds. If successful, it estblishes that said official exists and is willing (everything else being equal) to sell permits on the side. (Not all of Classic Traveller is like that - the rules for finding the Psionics Institute specify a GM-side roll to establish its presence on a world; then a player-side roll to find it, which can succeed only if the GM's roll turned out right. The rules don't discuss why pisonics is handled differently from Streetwise, but I think the idea is that the GM is expected to gatekeep psionics to a high degree, whereas finding officials to sell permits is a central part of play.)

In AD&D, a paladin can call for a warhorse which then obliged the GM (per Gygax's DMG) to create a whole backstory and "side quest" around the lcoation of that horse, and the mission the paladin has to complete in order to win it.

There is no in-principle reason why finding a map can't be treated in the same way as the above examples; so if it is not being treated that way, why? (I've offered a conjecture as to the different treatment of psionics in Traveller, just above; but why does the GM need to gatekeep the location of the McGuffin?)

Lanefan said:

For consistency, realism, and believability it works better the other way around, where the action resolutions are bound by the constructed world / setting / dungeon.

Click to expand...

As I've explained, I don't find these reasons very convincing. There is nothing unrealistic about the map being in the study. (It's not like finding beam weapons in the Duke's toilet!) If no prior contrary backstory has been established, then it's not inconsistent with anything.

If the GM hadn't decided, in advance, where the map was - maybe she hadn't got around to it; maybe she left all her notes on the train by accident on the way to the session, and so is doing her best to remember them but has forgotten the bit about the map - then something would have to be made up on the spot. That happens all the time in RPGing. It doen't make games less realistic or believable.

Instead of the GM just making it up, or rolling some dice secretly, it can be made consequent on the player's roll - as Traveller does for dodgy officials and Streetwise checks. That doesn't make the Traveller gameworld unrealistic or unbelievable.

Lanefan said:

Is the naga in consistent communication with the PC? If yes, then in theory the PC would be receiving instruction now and then (if not constantly) as to how to react to or initiate developments and would be forced by the Force of Will to obey.

Click to expand...

The spell says "The words of the mage become thoughts - as if the victim had formulated them himself". Whether the naga has the power to send words over distances is a little bit up for grabs - it has sent dreams, and also has a Whispering Wind ability, but in any event is a primeval magical being.

The real point here (which is, I think, a bit different from what [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION] has said) is that once the player has formulated a Belief for his PC that reflects the command from the naga to bring it the (NPC) mage so that it can spill said mage's blood in sacrifice to the spirits, that's enough. I don't need to tell the player what his PC is told to do. He can play his PC, including having regard to his Belief, and we have a game in which one PC is the thrall of the dark naga.

It's still the player playing his character, with full agency. (Ie making action declarations that he wants to make, which are resolved in the same way as every other action declaration, etc.)

pemerton said:

First, as I've mentioned you in another recent post - I do want to thank you for the courtesy of your posts in this thread.

Click to expand...

Sure, no problem .

pemerton said:

I see important differences here that I don't think you do. I think that is probably connected to other ways that we talk about RPGing.

Click to expand...

It may also be a matter of granularity - that some of the things that bother you, or the differentiations you make, just aren't an issue for me. But I hear what you are saying about content introduction vs. action resolution, and how GM fiat refers more to the latter than the former.

pemerton said:

If I were to say "yes" in this way, then I would tell the players. Part of what I see as distinguishing "say 'yes' or roll the dice" from illusionistic GMing is that the GM doesn't conceal his/her methods from the players.

Click to expand...

This is at the core of where we differ. I don't see illusionistic GMing as a problem, just part of the nature of the job, whereas you seem to have an ideological issue with it.

Actually, I see part of the skill of being a GM is maintaining the illusion - the illusion being that of what is in front of and behind the screen. I don't share dice rolls, monster HP, etc, because all of that is meta-game information that the characters wouldn't know. I might say the monster looks in bad shape, etc, but almost never "it has 4 HP left."

pemerton said:

All this is orthogonal to my reasons for no liking "omnipotent" GMing, which is about how pre-authored content is used to constrain action declarations, not about how content for new scenes/situations is established.

Click to expand...

Well again, for me "pre-authored content" is rarely if ever set in stone. I always try to be responsive to the situation. I can and will adapt and change pre-authored content.

pemerton said:

The nine points [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] wrote are an attempt to analyse all the things you refer to here: "power", "uncertainty", "control", "GM authority".

The uncertainty resides on the player side. It results from the GM having control of the backstory, which is not (fully) revealed to the players, but is (i) subject to change at any time by the GM, and (ii) available as a device for the GM to determine that declared actions fail without resort to the standard mechanics (eg set a difficulty, roll the dice).

If you think that's not where the uncertainty resides, then please elaborate.

(Another common source of uncertainy in RPGing: dice rolls. But this don't depend upon GM control over backstory, and so can't be the sort of uncertainty you are saying GM authority is in service of.)

Click to expand...

Couple comments on the (apparently) Strawmanish nature of my 9 points below:

1) The setting is the GMs.

2) The GM world-builds because it is a fun enterprise for them unto itself (an art).

3) The GM uses that pre-built world to determine off-screen events in some fashion, typically fiat-by-(some form of)extrapolation.

4) The GM uses that pre-built world to determine if a player's declared action is feasible at all (reserved right to veto power).

5) The GM uses that pre-built world to determine how a player's declared action is impacted when it is feasible and dice need to be rolled (impact on action resolution machinery).

6) The GM uses that pre-built world to help them in determining how the impacted setting evolves post-action-resolution.

These seem to be less broadly agreed upon, but there is plenty of support (either explicit or implied):

7) The GM uses their pre-built-world-related metaplot (or vision of narrative if not so concrete) during action resolution adjudication to determine if veto ("no") will provide a better (more interesting?) story outcome or "roll the dice" will provide a better (more interesting?) story outcome.

8) If the GM allows for "roll the dice", they can subordinate the results of action resolution (secretly) if they feel it makes for a better (more interesting?) story outcome.

9) The players role is to explore the art (of the GM's built world and related metaplot), appreciate the art, and take-up the plot hooks therein at their discretion (the "choose-you-own-adventure" invocation). Now "their (player) discretion" will invariably bump up against (4), (7), and (8) above. When it does, it seems to me that the general consensus of D&D players on ENWorld amounts to "its the GM's game/table, any player is perfectly free to find another game/table."

Click to expand...

- This was a request to comment directly on a commenter's statement that world-building by the GM was an art, was something they appreciated as a creative enterprise in and of itself, and that (one of the primary) roles of players is to explore and appreciate that effort and/or engage in a choose-your-own adventure approach to RPGIng based on that worldbuilding.

- This come on the heels of (after and before further) aggressive commentary by a GM stating that THE SETTING IS MINE (and other related commentary). This was not rebuked and this sentiment has been reiterated in other forms in this thread by other commenters and throughout ENWorld's many threads (again, especially in threads that decry players for optimization).

- Finally, only 1-6 I state appears to be broadly agreed upon. I'm still baffled how that is remotely contentious. 7-9 is where the conversation is to be had (and people need to comment on where they stand on it), but 1-6 is as benign as it gets.

---

Comments relating directly to your above post and to your comments about our short one-off we ran in 4e.

I can't find your mention regarding it, but I know I saw you invoked it. I want to say it was one of the Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards threads of yore! I believe that (as relates to this thread), the pair of contentions you, I, and others were making were the following:

* In D&D systems with (a) Vancian casters with Enchantment spells (especially with prolific spell load-outs) and (b) noncombat action resolution governed by a process sim (internal causality rather than genre logic) task resolution (rather than conflict resolution), Wizards/spellcasters are going to be inevitably dominate noncombat action resolution.

* The only way this doesn't take place is for GMs to either (a) preemptively protect crucial plot-points/NPCs by pulling out the classic (eye-roll-inducing to any hardened, long term player) blocks (secret backstory) or (b) make up and deploy those blocks on the spot when its clear their carefully sewn plot efforts are about to be undone by a few key spell power-plays.

* Limited backstory/malleable setting (the only thing that is firm is what has been established in play), nerfed Vancian Casting (in both breadth and potency), and conflict resolution mechanics that are governed by genre logic are a functional way to deal with these issues.

Our efforts showed a pretty orthodox example of how an obstinate chamberlain who is denying access to the king can have his efforts upturned dramatically without:

a) Spellcasters dominating the action.

b) Immersion being shattered (in fact, when your conception of your archetype is realized in play by your deft action declarations meeting successful action resolution, I would say that is a big + for immersion!).

c) Firm backstory having to be the reference point for the GM's role in adjudicating action resolution and evolving the fiction afterward.

pemerton said:

In Classic Traveller (1977 version), the rules set throws required on a player's Streetwise check for a PC to find a shady official willing to sell permits/licences at a good price. That is an action resolution that is not confined to the PC and his/her immediate surrounds. If successful, it estblishes that said official exists and is willing (everything else being equal) to sell permits on the side. (Not all of Classic Traveller is like that - the rules for finding the Psionics Institute specify a GM-side roll to establish its presence on a world; then a player-side roll to find it, which can succeed only if the GM's roll turned out right. The rules don't discuss why pisonics is handled differently from Streetwise, but I think the idea is that the GM is expected to gatekeep psionics to a high degree, whereas finding officials to sell permits is a central part of play.)

Click to expand...

Or... the game itself worldbuilds that there's always some shady official willing to sell permits/licenses under the table and the roll is simply to find him - the locally confined action resolution.

It's a matter of perspective. If you are predisposed to see something as a nail, then it's a nail. I get the impression you're predisposed to interpret game mechanics in your particular way and thus see the successful streetwise roll as establishing that there is such a shady official and setting some worldbuilding variable.

Mercurius said:

for me "pre-authored content" is rarely if ever set in stone. I always try to be responsive to the situation. I can and will adapt and change pre-authored content.

Click to expand...

It may be time for another distinction, which I made in a reply to [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] somewhere upthread.

Not all worldbuilding is prep. Eg if the GM draws a map of the whole gameworld, but the campaign takes place only in one little geographic segment of it, then that is not prep for play.

And not all prep is worldbuilding. If you make notes of (say) 10 encounters you think might be fun to run, but you work out what to do with them, how to sequence them etc in the course of play then you didn't build a world, in the sense of establish - in advance of play - content of the shared fiction which then feeds into action resolution.

This is why a "no myth" game isn't the same thing as a "no prep" game (though in some systems could be run that way - of systems I know, Cortex+ can be run with no or virtually no prep; 4e, on the other hand, requires someone (either me or the designers) to write up all those stat blocks in advance).

pemerton said:

And not all prep is worldbuilding. If you make notes of (say) 10 encounters you think might be fun to run, but you work out what to do with them, how to sequence them etc in the course of play then you didn't build a world, in the sense of establish - in advance of play - content of the shared fiction which then feeds into action resolution.

Click to expand...

Nah, prepping encounters is world-building. Are any of them creatures you've never used before? If so, by using them you've made them part of the world. Do they have independent motivations other than being sacks of hit points for the PCs to whack? Then you're world building. They may be no more significant in the grand scheme of things than the annoying tuft of weeds pushing its way up through the crack in my driveway - but they're still world-building contributions.

These would have to be the most non-connected, repetitive, generic encounters for worldbuilding to not be involved.

pemerton said:

Three things:

(1) I've never talked about a "right way" to play. I started a thread with a question: some posters answered it (@Nagol, [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION], etc). Some other posters - [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] - asserted or implied that by asking the question I was insulting them. To be frank, that's on them, not on me. If they don't want to answer the question "what is GM worldbuiling for", or think that the answer is so self-evident that to ask the question is to commit some RPG faux pas, well, no one is forcing them to post in the thread.

(2) What makes you think I don't understand why you prefer to play a different way? When I say "This is why I don't like such-and-such", what makes you think I'm telling you why you shouldn't like it?

(3) I've replied with courtesy and honesty to all your posts in this thread, and have not attacked you or your preferences (unless you consider me explaining why my preference are different an attack - in which case see (1) and (2) above). I'm a little surprised that you don't seem capable of doing the same.

Click to expand...

You have replied with courtesy and honesty. I don't feel like we've gotten anywhere, but you've spilled a lot of virtual ink trying to deconstruct a component of GMing. You're not a snarky person.
Some people don't like your methodology, but their sense that it is disingenuous are completely off and its really obnoxious that long time posters who exchanged with you for many years (on the other side of conversations, but so what) are ok with people acting like jerks (passive-aggressive or outright) to you.

The cowardly anonymity of the internet. People don't behave like that in real life. If they do it with any frequency, they inevitably do it to the wrong people at some point and they adapt really quickly such that they're mindful of their manners in the future.

So good on you for putting up with this crap.

Manbearcat said:

This was a request to comment directly on a commenter's statement that world-building by the GM was an art, was something they appreciated as a creative enterprise in and of itself, and that (one of the primary) roles of players is to explore and appreciate that effort and/or engage in a choose-your-own adventure approach to RPGIng based on that worldbuilding.

- This come on the heels of (after and before further) aggressive commentary by a GM stating that THE SETTING IS MINE (and other related commentary). This was not rebuked and this sentiment has been reiterated in other forms in this thread by other commenters and throughout ENWorld's many threads (again, especially in threads that decry players for optimization).

Click to expand...

And as (I think) the one who requested the comment - thank you, it was interesting! For what it's worth, I find your analysis pretty plausible, though - as I posted upthread following [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION]'s post - I think that there may be subsitutable values of your (2) (eg "Someone's got to do it!") which then feed through, in pretty straightforward ways, into your other points without fundamental effects on them.

Manbearcat said:

I want to say it was one of the Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards threads of yore!

Click to expand...

That sounds right.

Manbearcat said:

I believe that (as relates to this thread), the pair of contentions you, I, and others were making were the following:

* In D&D systems with (a) Vancian casters with Enchantment spells (especially with prolific spell load-outs) and (b) noncombat action resolution governed by a process sim (internal causality rather than genre logic) task resolution (rather than conflict resolution), Wizards/spellcasters are going to be inevitably dominate noncombat action resolution.

* The only way this doesn't take place is for GMs to either (a) preemptively protect crucial plot-points/NPCs by pulling out the classic (eye-roll-inducing to any hardened, long term player) blocks (secret backstory) or (b) make up and deploy those blocks on the spot when its clear their carefully sewn plot efforts are about to be undone by a few key spell power-plays.

Click to expand...

To me, this illustrates a further aspect of the contrast between classic/Gygaxian play, and "contemporary" play, that I drew in the OP.

First, and just to clear some underbrush, it's pretty apparent that - back in those dungeoneering day - Charm Person was much closer to what we would now think of as a Dominate effect. You can see that in examples of play; in discussions of the merits of using Charm Monster to control a troll or an ochre jelly and get it to fight for you; etct.

When Charm is run like that in that context, it is strong but not necessarily broken. An ogre (the best you can get with Charm Person) is clearly better than a hired mercenary, but not immeasurably better. And to try and get the ogre charmed you do have to take the risk of being clubbed by it if it makes the save (in AD&D, that chance is about 1 in 3).

Likewise, charming a NPC you meet in the dungeon might get you information about the next few rooms, or even a good tip on some juicy treasure; but it is not (either literally or metaphorically) going to give you the keys to the kingdom.

But as soon as the scope of gameplay changes into the "living, breathing world" - so that there are 0-level merchants (who fail their saves vs Charm 90% of the time) with inventories in the 1000s of gps; and chamberlains and kings; and intricate plots to disrupt if only you can talk to the right person and learn what s/he knows - then 1st level Charm Person becomes a game breaker! The context in which it was balanced is lost, and so either (i) we get rid of it, or (ii) we radically reimagine the mecanics of how it works.

D&D has been doing the latter systematically for about 30 years, although it took 4e and 5e to really square that circle. Which brings me to . . .

Manbearcat said:

* Limited backstory/malleable setting (the only thing that is firm is what has been established in play), nerfed Vancian Casting (in both breadth and potency), and conflict resolution mechanics that are governed by genre logic are a functional way to deal with these issues.

Our efforts showed a pretty orthodox example of how an obstinate chamberlain who is denying access to the king can have his efforts upturned dramatically without:

a) Spellcasters dominating the action.

<snip>

c) Firm backstory having to be the reference point for the GM's role in adjudicating action resolution and evolving the fiction afterward.

Click to expand...

If Charm Person and its ilk are integrated with generic resolution mechanics (in 5e, it gives advantage on check; in 4e, the Suggestion cantrip allows Arcana in lieu of Diplomacy) then they stop being auto-win buttons.

But then the generic resolution mechanics need to support social resolution, and here I think there is no real substitute for some form of robust confilct resolution mechanic (even reaction rolls can be a good start on this), which - in turn - needs limited backstory to work (so the motivations can be narrated in that explain the result of the mechanics).

If there is not that limited backstory then magic is apt to dominate again, as the established motivations will be used to block ordinary atempts at social interaction, and only magic with its special pleading - "It's mind control and so can change the NPC's motivations" - will have a chance.

Manbearcat said:

when your conception of your archetype is realized in play by your deft action declarations meeting successful action resolution, I would say that is a big + for immersion!

Click to expand...

Agreed.

billd91 said:

Or... the game itself worldbuilds that there's always some shady official willing to sell permits/licenses under the table and the roll is simply to find him - the locally confined action resolution.

Click to expand...

The game establishing default setting expectations isn't worldbuilding in the sense that the OP asks about. It woudl be interesting to ask what is the point of the D&D equipment list, for instance, but the OP wasn't asking that.

But also, in Classic Traveller it's quite possible that the resaon the character can't find an official willing to issue permits for cash is because there is not such official in that place. The rules don't specify either way. (Again, I stress the contrast with the Psionics Institute rules.)