What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Manbearcat]

Do you imagine the maze is populated or is just filled with doors to open, chairs to sit on and chest lids to open? So a dungeon is just a dungeon is just a dungeon, the non-player characters are about as animate as stone tiles and do not offer any story, rumours or intrigue in your adventures?

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] doesn't run dungeons in his games (in the classical sense). When I run dungeon crawl games, I'm either using Moldvay Basic or Torchbearer anymore (very sparingly AD&D).

So I've got the dungeon stocked with NPCs/Monsters, Traps, Puzzles, Secret Doors, Stairs, Chutes, etc etc. You roll a d6 per denizens in a particular room that should be in earshot of some racket nearby. If a 1 comes up (or 2 in the case of demihuman or creature with keen hearing), they hear it and check it out. Then you roll Reaction and find out what the dice say happens and go from there to either a social encounter, a combat encounter, or a chase (pretty much exhaustively). Same thing applies for Wandering Monsters. If its time to check for Wandering Monsters, you make your roll, if yes then you roll on your table to find out what comes up. Then you roll Reaction again and go from there.

The place is "alive" insofar as the dice says it is and I get to find out just how alive it is rather than deciding by fiat. My role is in creating the dungeon setting, the theme, stocking it, and then playing the obstacles (monsters included) to the adventurer's treasure hunt as they come up. In the stocking there may be intel or circumstance in there that relates to lower levels of the dungeon or future dungeon prospects that the PCs can divine/deliberate over when they go back to town with whatever spoils they've pulled out.

 

[Manbearcat]

This is very clear, thank you. I'm interested to see what others think of it (eg [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION], [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=6777696]redrick[/MENTION]).

I think that statement and several others creates a composite sketch (while not everyone will agree with each part, there is probably broad agreement on the whole) of something like the following:

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."

 

[Aenghus]

I think that statement and several others creates a composite sketch (while not everyone will agree with each part, there is probably broad agreement on the whole) of something like the following:

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."

This isn't the 1970's or 1980's, I think most games allow at least some appropriate discussion of issues that players have with the game, and immediate expulsion for daring to question the referee is much rarer nowadays. The average age of players has gone up, and most players expect to be treated with a modicum of respect. I see a lot less "bad" behavior in established groups than I did years ago when everyone was younger and more emotional. Even in cases where expulsion of a player from a game is on the cards, the player concerned often figures out themselves that they aren't a good fit for a particular game table , and leaves of their own accord.

Obviously, organised play games with strangers and con games would be different, and arguably require a firmer hand, but I don't play those any more.

 

[Manbearcat]

This isn't the 1970's or 1980's, I think most games allow at least some appropriate discussion of issues that players have with the game, and immediate expulsion for daring to question the referee is much rarer nowadays. The average age of players has gone up, and most players expect to be treated with a modicum of respect. I see a lot less "bad" behavior in established groups than I did years ago when everyone was younger and more emotional. Even in cases where expulsion of a player from a game is on the cards, the player concerned often figures out themselves that they aren't a good fit for a particular game table , and leaves of their own accord.

Obviously, organised play games with strangers and con games would be different, and arguably require a firmer hand, but I don't play those any more.

How do you think table disputes related to refereeing are thought of with respect to the majority of posters on ENWorld though? My sense from posting here the last (nearly) 6 years (and lurking intermittently from its inception to 06) is that my takeaway above is pretty representative (and you've seen a nearly identical arrangement of words to that effect in this thread); Ultimately, its the GMs game/table...if you don't like it, you're more than welcome to find another. Disagree?

 

[Aenghus]

How do you think table disputes related to refereeing are thought of with respect to the majority of posters on ENWorld though? My sense from posting here the last (nearly) 6 years (and lurking intermittently from its inception to 06) is that my takeaway above is pretty representative (and you've seen a nearly identical arrangement of words to that effect in this thread); Ultimately, its the GMs game/table...if you don't like it, you're more than welcome to find another. Disagree?

The devil's in the details. I agree in a conventional referee-based game that the referee is responsible for keeping the game moving and quickly resolving or tabling for later player appeals re adjudication. In such a game they are ultimately responsible for asking a a player to leave if they don't fit in.

It's just that your writeup would also fit the worst intolerant excesses of the old-school viking hatted DM who is totally incapable of accepting even the mildest criticism and ejects players on a whim.

How Ultimately is ultimately? What sort of behavior is sufficient to be voted off the island? This is something it's hard to get a feeling for, especially when I get the (possibly mistaken) impression some posters talk a hard line but are more lenient in practice.

 

[MarkB]

I think that statement and several others creates a composite sketch (while not everyone will agree with each part, there is probably broad agreement on the whole) of something like the following:

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."

That's all very GM-oriented. For me, the main use for world-building is to establish a common background framework within which the players and the GM can frame the fictional elements of their specific characters. Having that framework be GM-authored in advance has the advantage of allowing a greater degree of consistency between each participant's concepts, which in turn allows the group's experience of the fiction to feel deeper and more coherent, whilst having the disadvantage of potentially blocking off some choices.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION]

I'm not expressing what I think about these things and I'm not asking what you (personally) think about these things.

I'm expressing my opinion of the prevailing winds of this thread specifically and ENWorld generally.

What is your opinion on the ENWorld's collective (as it is currently constituted) regarding these things?

 

[Aenghus]

[MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION]

I'm not expressing what I think about these things and I'm not asking what you (personally) think about these things.

I'm expressing my opinion of the prevailing winds of this thread specifically and ENWorld generally.

What is your opinion on the ENWorld's collective (as it is currently constituted) regarding these things?

Look, I'm on the autism spectrum and have difficulty determining people's opinions when face to face with them, let alone some posts on the internet. Something about being asked to interpret other people makes me very uncomfortable, given that I've got it wrong in the past.

I also find it very difficult to reconcile people saying one thing and doing another, something that happens a lot.

So I'm not going to answer your question. I hope you can accept that and that I have my reasons.

 

[Manbearcat]

Look, I'm on the autism spectrum and have difficulty determining people's opinions when face to face with them, let alone some posts on the internet. Something about being asked to interpret other people makes me very uncomfortable, given that I've got it wrong in the past.

I also find it very difficult to reconcile people saying one thing and doing another, something that happens a lot.

So I'm not going to answer your question. I hope you can accept that and that I have my reasons.

Hokey doke! No worries

That's all very GM-oriented. For me, the main use for world-building is to establish a common background framework within which the players and the GM can frame the fictional elements of their specific characters. Having that framework be GM-authored in advance has the advantage of allowing a greater degree of consistency between each participant's concepts, which in turn allows the group's experience of the fiction to feel deeper and more coherent, whilst having the disadvantage of potentially blocking off some choices.

My intent was for what you've written here to be folded into my post's "fiat-by-(some form of)extrapolation" and "determining veto and impact on action resolution machinery" and "explore the GM's art and appreciate it" . In the course of that, the opinion (by those that have it) is that "a common background framework <is established>" and "the group's experience of the fiction <feels> deeper and more coherent".

 

[Mercurius]

So the point of worldbuilding is for the GM to present the players with the product of his/her imagination?

No, not really. Let's go back to my summation in the last post I wrote:

So the point of world-building, in this context, is similar to the point of creating a setting for a novel: it provides a context for story, and a space for the reader (or player) to explore and enjoy.

"Providing context for story and a space for the (players) to explore and enjoy" is not the same as the GM "present(ing) the players with the product of his/her imagination."

The main difference is the purpose (or point). In your phrasing, the purpose is centered on the GM and his or her presentation; it is about the GM, in other words, as--to use a Tolkienian term--sub-creator. And to be honest, our phrasing has a kind of pejorative implication to it, that is "GM as narcissist: .

In my phrasing, the purpose is centered on the play itself--both GM and players--for the point of worldbuilding is to provide context for game play (or story) - and for enjoyment, which of course is the most important point of all, for if there is no enjoyment then there are no participants!

EDIT: For what's it worth, I don't find the notion of "strengths and weaknesses" that helpful in this context.

OK, why? A hammer has strengths and weaknesses that depend upon context - that is, what you want to use it for. In the context of which we speak different approaches to world-building could have strengths and weaknesses depending upon the effect you want to manifest and the agreement of the gaming group. If everyone except the GM wants a more co-creative experience, but the GM mostly wants to present their brilliant creation, then there are weaknesses to his approach given the context. Of course maybe we don't need to frame this as strengths/weaknesses, and more as contextual appropriateness.

If the point of GM worldbuilding is for the GM to present the players with the product of his/her imagination, then I think it's easier just to identify that - that's what it's for - then to frame that as a strength, as if it's instrumental to some other goal (what would that other goal be?).

Sure, but that's not what I'm saying the point of world-building is, so this is a moot point.

You also seem to be saying that the point of the GM doing the worldbuiling is to ensure a certain sort of passivityi/non-creation on the party of the players. But you talk about the players "interacting" with the world. Given that that's metaphor, are you able to make it more literal? Eg should we think of action declaration by a player for a PC as something like a suggestion to the GM to change or develop the fiction in a certain way?

Again, this is not at all what I'm saying and I'm a bit baffled by why you'd think this. It is not about "ensuring passivity." It is about enabling a certain kind of immersion into otherworldliness, mystery, and uncertainty that I find is better facilitated by the GM being the primary creator and authority on the world.

This doesn't mean that it isn't possible to accomplish those things in a co-creative approach; it really depends upon the situation, game, and perhaps most of all, the individuals concerned.

I think we're talking about two different approaches based upon different underlying assumptions about the roles and power of the GM and players. One approach assumes that the GM is omnipotent, and the player's relationship to the world is akin to our own relationship to our world; the players--through their avatars, the characters, have agency but not the capacity to alter reality (at least as far as we know!). The other approach, yours, is that the GM and PCs are all co-creators and are able to alter and form reality, although to what degree remains unclear, and I suppose there is variability depending upon the group.

Would you agree with that?

It also seems to me that you see one approach as inherently superior (the latter), or at least you don't see any positive benefits to the former, that the latter can do everything that the former can and more. To this I would disagree.

But there's an underlying factor here that we're dancing around, and that is the matter of power, and related factors such as certainty, control, etc. I am reminded of how in video games, if you don't like the result you can always try again, or save the game at a certain point and keep going until you make it through. Or I think of the (quite good) film About Time in which the protagonist has the ability to go back in time, change his actions, and then go back to his present and thereby live in an altered reality.

I see nothing wrong with this as a game experience. But it does radically change the overall feeling of the story environment for the players. Let's say my PC finds a chest, opens it, and then the DM says "pick any magic item from the DMG that is worth 50,000 GP or less." That's pretty fun but...something is lost. A sense of mystery, uncertainty, and I would say immersion.

In other words, in this case at least, player co-creative empowerment comes at a cost. And for my preferred D&D experience, at least, it is not a cost worth paying. If I'm playing Diaspora or Universalis, then hell yes, let's do it.