What is *worldbuilding* for?

howandwhy99 said:

The Forge & the current vein of narrative theory they use (not just a theory at all to them, I propose) is nothing less than Anti-Game Theory. And and it is Anti-D&D. Regardless of whatever the latest brand name owners purvey.

Click to expand...

You seem to be implying that there's a clear right way to play D&D (as a game, with clear objectives of mastery, winning, etc), and a wrong way (as a shared fiction, creative expression, etc).

Isn't the Right Way to Play D&D a unique mixture of 40+ years of game design, play, ideas, and personal experiences that each group makes their own? Even if the variance between most groups is only slight, isn't the whole spirit--even letter--of the game to make it your own experience?

Furthermore, regardless of how D&D was played in 1974, isn't it valid to play it in different ways? And can we not look at D&D as a living tradition that has no absolute cap on branchings and variations?

howandwhy99 said:

Obvious to any game designer who has read the Big Model, it is an intentional falsehood meant to subvert all gaming by treating gaming as the act of improvisational expression, which it is not. Read any actual game design theory for hundreds of years. Gaming is the act of goal seeking in a structural design, whether made by a person or not.

Narrative concepts and terminology are part of a fundamentally different culture which does not coincide with game culture. Yet you continue to perpetrate the lies of The Big Model when you continue to call elements of gaming "fictions" (a narrative term). There is no such thing as an actual fiction, I assume you know this. The theory of narratives is meant to be used pragmatically just as any other. Game elements are structures, mechanical designs which operate together in a single apparatus for the players to game (seek pre-existing goals within).

Yes, this means the cobwebs have to "be there", at least in the hidden game design the DM has behind the screen, if the players are going to be able to interact with them in any way. Players can believe whatever they choose about the actual hidden design. But it is up to the DM to objectively relate the current configuration when the players' pieces have the ability to discover such things.

To be clear, gaming is a repetitive act where the players can game a design, learn their scores, adjust their play, and improve their ability at the game over time. This is the opposite act of creative improv. It is also at the heart of roleplaying in D&D: mastering the game, demonstrating this by scoring points, going up in level, and being balanced against more difficult game designs.

What appalls me is your attempt to vilify the seminal moment of RPGs as "badwrongfun", when Arneson and Gygax took the massive and nuanced game designs from wargame tables and hid them behind screens. Thus enabling them to track highly detailed and vast game designs which players could game over 100s of hours as they advanced in their personal mastery of the game. By my understanding RPGS and D&D in particular are the first Hidden Design Games in history, and the type of game design almost all computer games follow as well. That Gary recognized that multiple manners of play and mastery were possible in games is something he's still ahead on when it comes to computer game design.

The Forge & the current vein of narrative theory they use (not just a theory at all to them, I propose) is nothing less than Anti-Game Theory. And and it is Anti-D&D. Regardless of whatever the latest brand name owners purvey.

Click to expand...

You seem to have a lot of built up negative feelings for The Forge...

First of all, you are right about your definition of games being goal seeking in a structured format. But you have to admit that is a very broad definition which includes chess, hockey, hopscotch, board games, role playing games...

How is the narrative approach in rpgs destroying the hobby? The players are still seeking goals, and not always reaching them. The introduction of player driven plots is simply changing the way the games are being played. The ideas from The Forge are just that, different approaches, ideas and game philosophy. If you feel that these ideas are tainting even the latest iteration of DnD, it's because they are popular ideas. The more ways there are to play, the more people will be drawn to the hobby. Look at board games. There is an explosion of interest right now because they have evolved in a myriad of directions.

Even storytelling games are still games, as the players "compete" to drive the story in their preferred directions.

There is no plot to drag rpgs down into the narrative muck of fiction. Enjoy your game, however you want. This thread is a debate, not a war over the future of the hobby.

howandwhy99 said:

What appalls me is your attempt to vilify the seminal moment of RPGs as "badwrongfun", when Arneson and Gygax took the massive and nuanced game designs from wargame tables and hid them behind screens.

Click to expand...

I have no idea where you suppose I did this. On the first page of the thread, you said


You do realise that I wrote the post that you were praising, don't you?

Ovinomancer said:

How can it be distiinguished? You make this statement that there's a difference between creating an encounter map and pre-authoring setting details but don't actually provide an argument for the difference. To me, the only difference would be degree, not kind.

Click to expand...

Here's one example of the difference: I turned up to my first Traveller session with four worlds generated (each world takes about 5 minutes; I'd rolled these up in the course of re-familiarising myself with the world generation mechanics).

These weren't elements of the shared fiction; they were notes on a piece of paper.

In the course of the session three of those worlds were introduced into the shared fiction - as a stopover; as a destination; as a further world where a pathogen was known to come from.

The other world is still there on my bit of paper in case I need it. It's not part of the shared fiction.

Here's another example of the difference: I turned up once to a 4e session with my copy of MV2 - Threats to the Nentir Vale. That's prep (all these monsters statted up, with varying degrees of backstory). During the session, one of the PCs started a ritual sucking chaos energy out of a defeated hydra-like fire drake. Something went wrong, and I wanted some creatures to be summoned from the mountains by the out-of-control chaos energy. I flipped through the MV2 and founds mooncalves, which seemed to fit the bill. So now it was established in the shared fiction both that (i) mooncalves exist, and (ii) some of them are here, now.

Here's another example: In my BW game I statted up a dark naga, following the guidelines for creature design in the Monster Burner. I wan't 100% sure how I was going to use it. Then, around the same time, I got a copy of the "Paths of Spite" (then a pdf online; now part of The Codex) and wrote up a dark elf NPC. I wasn't sure how I was going to use that NPC either.

Then the opportunity to use the NPC emerged - as a thorn in the side of the PCs in the context of failed Orienteering checks to reach the waterhole at the foot of the Abor-Alz after trekking across the Bright Desert. And this also then gave some context for the dark naga - as the master of the dark elf, whom the PCs ended up meeting in a cave loosely inspired by B2's caves of chaos.

And another example: for my Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy game I statted up a crypt thing. I knew I wanted to use it, but wasn't sure how. Then one of the players - who was in a dungeon tomb - established a Secret Door asset, which led to a hidden part of the dungeon. That was the perfect opportunity to use my crypt thing.

Those're are instances of prep which don't establish anything about the shared fiction prior to play; but they certainly make my GMing easier.

pemerton said:

Here's one example of the difference: I turned up to my first Traveller session with four worlds generated (each world takes about 5 minutes; I'd rolled these up in the course of re-familiarising myself with the world generation mechanics).

These weren't elements of the shared fiction; they were notes on a piece of paper.

In the course of the session three of those worlds were introduced into the shared fiction - as a stopover; as a destination; as a further world where a pathogen was known to come from.

The other world is still there on my bit of paper in case I need it. It's not part of the shared fiction.

Click to expand...

Riiiights... and the encounter map isn't part of the shared fiction until it's introduced. So far, no difference?

Here's another example of the difference: I turned up once to a 4e session with my copy of MV2 - Threats to the Nentir Vale. That's prep (all these monsters statted up, with varying degrees of backstory). During the session, one of the PCs started a ritual sucking chaos energy out of a defeated hydra-like fire drake. Something went wrong, and I wanted some creatures to be summoned from the mountains by the out-of-control chaos energy. I flipped through the MV2 and founds mooncalves, which seemed to fit the bill. So now it was established in the shared fiction both that (i) mooncalves exist, and (ii) some of them are here, now.

Click to expand...

Uh, huh, and encounter maps aren't part of the shared fiction until they show up, either. So, that 0 and 2 on differences?

Here's another example: In my BW game I statted up a dark naga, following the guidelines for creature design in the Monster Burner. I wan't 100% sure how I was going to use it. Then, around the same time, I got a copy of the "Paths of Spite" (then a pdf online; now part of The Codex) and wrote up a dark elf NPC. I wasn't sure how I was going to use that NPC either.

Then the opportunity to use the NPC emerged - as a thorn in the side of the PCs in the context of failed Orienteering checks to reach the waterhole at the foot of the Abor-Alz after trekking across the Bright Desert. And this also then gave some context for the dark naga - as the master of the dark elf, whom the PCs ended up meeting in a cave loosely inspired by B2's caves of chaos.

Click to expand...

Right... again we're saying these things are the same as the encounter map -- pre-authored setting details that aren't part of the shared fiction until they enter play. I kinda feel like you've missed the point of my question and that would mean that your original statement was in error?

And another example: for my Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy game I statted up a crypt thing. I knew I wanted to use it, but wasn't sure how. Then one of the players - who was in a dungeon tomb - established a Secret Door asset, which led to a hidden part of the dungeon. That was the perfect opportunity to use my crypt thing.

Those're are instances of prep which don't establish anything about the shared fiction prior to play; but they certainly make my GMing easier.

Click to expand...

And now I'm going with you completely missed what I was asking. YOU stated that encounter maps were not like pre-authored setting. When I questioned you on that, you gave me a list of things you prepped. That's neat, I guess, but how did you think this shows that encounter maps are different from pre-authoring the setting? Again, you're showing that it's literally a difference of degree, not kind, which was my argument all along.

Here's the difference: these prepped maps/NPCs/etc. are possibile game elements until they are introduced, but they are not handcuffs by which the GM is constrained (preauthored backstory by which the GM is constrained). If they become introduced into play, then they are part of the shared fiction.

Mercurius said:

Isn't the Right Way to Play D&D a unique mixture of 40+ years of game design, play, ideas, and personal experiences that each group makes their own? Even if the variance between most groups is only slight, isn't the whole spirit--even letter--of the game to make it your own experience?

Furthermore, regardless of how D&D was played in 1974, isn't it valid to play it in different ways? And can we not look at D&D as a living tradition that has no absolute cap on branchings and variations?

Click to expand...

You make the act of cultural subversion to eradicate of everything in the hobby of RPGs by falsely rewriting its entire history sound positively open-minded. My goodness! Why shouldn't we all engage in collaborative narration and call it gaming? Or the lie "gaming means making choices."

A hit job is a hit job. What can you remember of the actual D&D hobby now that the BS of "D&D is an improv story making game" has taken over? Do you remember any of it? How roleplaying is the act of scoring points and going up in level. That you only go up in level do to successful game play? I can barely find 1 in a 1000 people who can know the first detail of the RPG hobby. "You mean powergaming?" is there response. It is a veritable mental mindwipe and the murder of a hobby by deliberate whitewashing. "How could the 1990s have been so bitterly divided in RPGs between storyteller / character acting games and all the other games?", "Why was GURPS denied to even be an RPG throughout the 80s?" What has happened is a clear and deliberate act of cultural genocide, as I called it out on this board in... what? 2004? 2005?

Arilyn said:

How is the narrative approach in rpgs destroying the hobby?

Click to expand...

Are you serious? How is treating a game hobby like it really is about improvising a story and then calling that act "gaming" an act of deliberate destruction? (the only act of gaming if you hold to Edwards "Every game is a Storygame" dogmatism). Calling a crackpot, mostly cribbed, post-structural narrative theory a "Game Theory" is deliberate obfuscation. His is ideological warfare not only against RPGs, but all games and game theory. Story making is the opposite of game play. How much "No one really knows what a game is?" BS can you stand? Or that no "serious" culture of ideas about game design ever existed before the Big Model? And saying that in 2001 as if the whole history of games didn't occur? Or that our hobby, the one requiring more rulebooks than any other in history (perhaps the first hardcover rulebooks?) in order to even play these games has "forever been about improvising stories where no rules are necessary". This is all deliberate lies, not a "new way to play a game". So-called "1-page RPGs" was another intentional attack upon the gaming hobby in order to eradicate gameplay and supplant it by misnamed improv. Improv is NOT what makes an RPG an RPG. It is what makes something not a game. It is certainly not what made Arneson and Gygax write lengthy books of balanced rulesets when they created RPGs out of wargame theory. The truth is, no referee should ever improvise in a roleplaying game. That's the actual hobby. The mantra of D&D is, "I"m not making it up!"

pemerton said:

I have no idea where you suppose I did this. On the first page of the thread, you said
You do realise that I wrote the post that you were praising, don't you?

Click to expand...

So you're saying I am not to trust the above assessment by [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] of you in this thread? That you actually are an advocate for the RPG hobby as truly the hobby of hidden design games? And that this is a good and preferable practice more people should identify as the real hobby of RPGs?

darkbard said:

Here's the difference: these prepped maps/NPCs/etc. are possibile game elements until they are introduced, but they are not handcuffs by which the GM is constrained (preauthored backstory by which the GM is constrained). If they become introduced into play, then they are part of the shared fiction.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

And-or a map of the rest of the castle as well, to show where the study is in relation to all the other rooms...

howandwhy99 said:

So you're saying I am not to trust the above assessment by [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] of you in this thread? That you actually are an advocate for the RPG hobby as truly the hobby of hidden design games? And that this is a good and preferable practice more people should identify as the real hobby of RPGs?

Click to expand...

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.

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. I think it's possible to play Glorantha as a type of "hidden design" game, but I suspect it's not that rewarding, and I don't think that is what appealed to people about RQ. They were attracted to what they saw as its narrative power. (Whether or not it is a good system for that is another question.)

I've recently been refereeing Classic Traveller. I don't think it's very-well suited for "hidden design" at all - the mechanics are all on the surface and the players are expected to have read them. I have a few early published modules for Traveller which are essentially mysteries, but without the engaging or plot-twisty character of a good CoC module. I couldn't possibly imagine running them without having pillows and blankets ready for my snoozing players, I can't imagine that audiences c 1980 regarded them as heaps more interesting than I do. If one looks at the adventure seeds published in Supplement 6 76 Patrons, they're clearly push in favour of a story/mystery/plot-twisty game which is not going to work very well as "hidden design" for the reasons I gave in the OP: the parameters are too wide and too variable, and (something you've mentioned in a recent post) the players don't get to do multiple tries to improve their play as they do in dungeoneering RPGing.

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

For what it's worth, I personally do not enjoy Gygaxian play, and lack the patience for it either as player or GM. The fact that I enjoy games that are different from what you call "hidden design" games, though, I think has had little influence on the overall destiny of the hobby. I'm not a professional game designer, not a professional referee, and haven't been to a convention for many years. I play with a group of friends in Melbourne, Australia, have done a little bit of PbP with like-minded people on these boards, and post in threads that are read by (perhaps) single digits hundreds of people in a current RPGing community that (I'm tolds) consists of more than 10,000,000 players.