What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Mercurius]

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....SNIP....

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."

Hmm. What you're doing here is reducing a wide range into a rather narrow, extreme caricature that is, I'm guessing, not the norm for the "ENWorld Collective" (whatever that is).

I also see you positing two factions: One is the minority, of which you and pemerton and others are part of, and the other is the majority, that includes everyone else (sort of like Star Wars ). I just don't see it as so bifurcated or black-and-white. It is a spectrum.

 

[Manbearcat]

Hmm. What you're doing here is reducing a wide range into a rather narrow, extreme caricature that is, I'm guessing, not the norm for the "ENWorld Collective" (whatever that is).

I also see you positing two factions: One is the minority, of which you and pemerton and others are part of, and the other is the majority, that includes everyone else (sort of like Star Wars ). I just don't see it as so bifurcated or black-and-white. It is a spectrum.

No I'm not.

At all.

Not even remotely what you're describing.

You see in this very thread people explicitly citing the game/the table/the setting...as the GMs...and I'm describing what I'm reading in order to depict it...you see the same things time in and time out on ENWorld in various threads like this and in threads about PC optimization...and you see rallying around that position either with a deluge of xp or significant cited agreement reinforcing it or nearly uniform lack of protesting of that position (and I'm pretty sure you're well aware that people vociferously and incessantly protest that which they disagree with on these boards!), implying at least tepid agreement (bare minimum)...hence the reasonable view that it is ENWorld consensus"!

And I'm somehow reducing <whatever> to a caricature?

Please, Mercurius.

If there is one thing this board struggles with, it is analysis that aims to distill games, procedures, and GMing ethos down to first principles and the implication of those principles on design and play (unless it is something where mutual dislike roundly unites!). I'll take distilling information so we can get to something usable over the opacity of the status quo (which is what I feel people want for whatever reason). Even if the distillation isn't perfect (eg, you feel its a caricature...which is ????-inducing to myself, but ok), we can work to make it better and more clear (preferably with examination of play excerpts, but again, people are very resistant to posting those for whatever reason!). With that, people can better understand different play paradigms, games, GMing principles/techniques and how to enrich, expand, or contract their own RPG experience.

 

[MarkB]

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".

Yeah, that's not the same thing at all. The intent is not to explore and appreciate the GM's art - it is to utilise the background information as a tool, a general backdrop against which to collectively create something new, coherent and mutually entertaining.

The provision of a single vision for the general background and history does not preclude active creativity in actual play - in some cases it can encourage it, by providing a useful foundation upon which to build.

 

[Mercurius]

@Manbearcat, are you happier if I replace "caricature" with "over-simplistic reductionism?" I mean, it is rather similar, but perhaps the latter better expresses at what I perceive in your post.

Anyhow, you are positing a false entity that you entitle the "ENWorld Collective." Now maybe there is a status quote, and shared assumptions that are vaguely aligned with your nine points, but what I see you doing is taking a relatively extreme end of it and saying the entire collective operates within that narrow range. I simply don't think this is the case.

Imagine this scenario: that you somehow got a large enough cross-section of ENWorld members to read your nine points and respond to them, adjusting them to how they actually play the game. I imagine that a large percentage would diverge, some quite substantially. I don't even think your nine points are the median; I think they are representative of the deep end of the swimming pool, so to speak. This is a useful device (strawman) to poke holes in, but it evades the actual truth of probably most peoples' experience.

For example, I would guess that most GMs don't follow your 2nd point in the way you frame it (and the way pemerton is pushing, as he and I discussed). World-building isn't only about the GM having fun. Some GMs do it as a hobby unto itself, but even then most that I have encountered see that as a separate, if overlapping endeavor (That said, I imagine that there is a relatively small minority that do as you say).

Everything follows from that false (OK, questionable) assumption, and is tainted by its implications.

Another point of example--and I could probably give some for each of your points--is #8. Just because a GM can use fiat doesn't mean he or she does with any frequency. It is a kind of wild card that can be used in case of "catastrophic failure," or even simply when the GM feels like the overall game experience would be enhanced by a little nudge here or there. Each GM has a different take on what that means, and thus when to use it. You and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seem to take a kind of purist approach that any such usage--even if in potential--inherently taints the whole experience, like arsenic in a glass of water. To each their own, I guess, but know that for many (most?), the existence of GM fiat has no negative impact on the game experience, and is actually used as a way to enhance it.

 

[Sadras]

@pemerton doesn't run dungeons in his games (in the classical sense).

That is abundantly clear to all within the thread, but Pemerton IS talking about comparing the worldbuilding of classical dungeons with the worldbuilding of the wilderness. Once again I ask, I assume the classical dungeon is populated with sentient creatures and not only doors to open, chair to sit on and chest lids to open?

Would you say ToEE is a classical dungeon? Because within that module there are plenty of NPCs which with DM fiat will allow for the story to unfold in as many ways as an urban mystery or a wilderness exploration adventure.

EDIT: Because it does sound like what Pemerton should be asking is, Is worldbuilding only useful for non-animate objects? or something to that effect.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, that's not the same thing at all. The intent is not to explore and appreciate the GM's art - it is to utilise the background information as a tool, a general backdrop against which to collectively create something new, coherent and mutually entertaining.

Yeah, pretty much this in a nutshell.

And, appreciation of the GM's art - as with any art - lies only in the eyes of the viewer...which in nearly all cases is the players but can also at times be the GM herself.

Further, "appreciation", as in recognition, isn't always positive: it can involve admiration, sure, but it can also involve criticism and-or dislike. Why do I say this? Because every time I design a world, no matter how pleased I might be with a lot of it, something about it ends up annoying me to no end once it's been played for a while...but I can't change it because the run of play has already baked it in. (in my current world it's the geography - various key places are just too bloody far apart to be practical in non-high-level play. Grrrr...stupid Lanefan...bad Lanefan...)

The provision of a single vision for the general background and history does not preclude active creativity in actual play - in some cases it can encourage it, by providing a useful foundation upon which to build.

And this, too.

Lan-"largely stepping back for the day and letting others fight the good fight"-efan

 

[pemerton]

In both of your examples, you accomplish a minute amount of general worldbuilding before play begins, allow your players to add some of the specifics, and then jointly accomplish the rest during actual play. Does that about sum it up?

I guess so, yep.

The default in D&D and in most campaigns is that the DM accomplishes the worldbuilding with little, if any, input from the players before play actually begins. If I understand th point of this thread, you're wondering why games default to GM-centric worldbuilding prior to play instead of player-centric worldbuilding during the course of the game.

Sort of - I'm really asking what that GM-centric, prior-to-play worldbuilding is for? As in, what purpose does it serve in the context of RPGing? The main answer (though not the only one) seems to be the the point is for the GM to present something to the players (@shidaku likened it to an artwork) which they then draw on to contextualise/deepen their experience of the game: something like a creator-audience relationship.

Assuming I'm correct, the answer is, "Relatively few players desire to engage in the worldbuilding exercise, so that task falls to the GM. Developing the world during play is a rare talent, so most GMs do their worldbuilding beforehand."

I personally have doubts about the "rare talent" claim, but that's tangential - this idea of "someone has to do it, and that's the GM" is another one that has come up in this thread, though I think your's is probably the clearest statement of it!

Most of the players I've GM'd for over the years enjoy exploration. They want to find out what's around the next corner or what's in the next dungeon room. They enjoy the thrill of discovery. They can't get that kind of fun if they're deciding what's around the next corner or what's in the next dungeon room.

I've never played an RPG where the players make that sort of decision. (OGL Conan allows for it, via its Fate point rules, but I've never played OGL Conan.) In thie systems I play, a player can hope that something is around the next corner, but it is action resolution mechanics that will determine whether or not that hope is rewarded.

One thing I've been trying to do in this thread is talk about RPGing literally rather than using metaphors. So when you refer to players "exploring" or "discovering", that seems like a metaphor (given that in reality there is no dungeon, no corner etc - there's some fiction written by the GM). So "exploring" literally means something like - the players declare certain actions for their PCs (eg "I look more closely at the statue") and this acts as a trigger, in the context of the gameplay, for the GM to then tell the player something. Assuming the GM has worldbuilt in advance, the GM's telling will be a reading or a paraphrasing from his/her notes.

Personally, I view the campaign setting and NPCs as the GM's "characters". I "roll" them up just as a player rolls his/her PC, I give them traits and motivations, then I let them loose in the game. I consider my worldbuilding notes the world's character sheet. I refer to those notes when I have questions about how situations might unfold.

This is an interesting one. There are certainly aspects of the gameworld in my games that I would think of as "my characters".

But this then leads to questions about action resolution. Normally, a GM can't just declare that (say) his/her NPC beats a PC in a sprint. The action resolution rules have to be consulted (eg maybe there's an opposed check; maybe the character with the higher Speed score wins - whatever it is that the rules of the game dictate).

But what, then, if the PC is looking for the special map in the study, while the GM (playing the gameworld as his/her character) thinks that it's more likely really hidden in the bread bin in the kitchen. In the way I run my game, the action resolution mechanics have to be consulted (in BW it wouldn't be an opposed check; the player would have to beat a static, contextually-determined difficulty; in Cortex+ Heroic it would be an opposed check, but against the Doom Pool rather than a NPC; in 4e it might be part of a skill challenge, which generally involves static DCs).

But I think a lot of GMs (eg [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] in this thread) would assume that the GM's "character" just wins in this context. Ie the GM gets to decide where the map is, and thus that the PC can't find it in the study if it's not there, independently of the action resolution mechanics.

Do you have any thoughts on why some aspects of the GM's world (eg hidden maps) are treated differently, from the point of view of resolution, from how other aspects (eg sprinting NPCs) are treated? What is that difference for?

 

[MarkB]

One thing I've been trying to do in this thread is talk about RPGing literally rather than using metaphors. So when you refer to players "exploring" or "discovering", that seems like a metaphor (given that in reality there is no dungeon, no corner etc - there's some fiction written by the GM). So "exploring" literally means something like - the players declare certain actions for their PCs (eg "I look more closely at the statue") and this acts as a trigger, in the context of the gameplay, for the GM to then tell the player something. Assuming the GM has worldbuilt in advance, the GM's telling will be a reading or a paraphrasing from his/her notes.

That is not a metaphor, it's a metagame. Similar concepts, but distinct. And when we're talking about the subject of shared fictional worlds, especially when trying to convey game-mechanical choices in more universally-understood terms, it's almost impossible to entirely divest our discussions of such symbolic terminology.

This is an interesting one. There are certainly aspects of the gameworld in my games that I would think of as "my characters".

But this then leads to questions about action resolution. Normally, a GM can't just declare that (say) his/her NPC beats a PC in a sprint. The action resolution rules have to be consulted (eg maybe there's an opposed check; maybe the character with the higher Speed score wins - whatever it is that the rules of the game dictate).

But what, then, if the PC is looking for the special map in the study, while the GM (playing the gameworld as his/her character) thinks that it's more likely really hidden in the bread bin in the kitchen. In the way I run my game, the action resolution mechanics have to be consulted (in BW it wouldn't be an opposed check; the player would have to beat a static, contextually-determined difficulty; in Cortex+ Heroic it would be an opposed check, but against the Doom Pool rather than a NPC; in 4e it might be part of a skill challenge, which generally involves static DCs).

But I think a lot of GMs (eg [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] in this thread) would assume that the GM's "character" just wins in this context. Ie the GM gets to decide where the map is, and thus that the PC can't find it in the study if it's not there, independently of the action resolution mechanics.

Do you have any thoughts on why some aspects of the GM's world (eg hidden maps) are treated differently, from the point of view of resolution, from how other aspects (eg sprinting NPCs) are treated? What is that difference for?

In this particular case, I think it's largely for being easier to conceptualise. If both the players and GM are attempting to suspend their disbelief and engage with the game-world as a fictional construct, then being able to conceptualise it as a stable construct is easier on the mind than viewing it as an amorphous probability-space. Resolving PC-vs-NPC actions in real-time through dice rolls feels fine, because you're seeing how their actions play out as they occur. But conceptualising something that, within the game's fiction, would already have happened as being unresolved until the players interact with it can be a tough sell psychologically - mostly to the GM, but in some cases also to the players.

That's not true for all GMs, and there's definitely a spectrum there, but for many, it's where their comfort zone lies. It's certainly the way I prefer to run something like D&D, and whilst I'm a lot more flexible in collaborative world-building and situation resolution when running something like Fate Core, it's still not where I feel most comfortable.

 

[Sebastrd]

Do you have any thoughts on why some aspects of the GM's world (eg hidden maps) are treated differently, from the point of view of resolution, from how other aspects (eg sprinting NPCs) are treated? What is that difference for?

I can only tell you how I run things in my game. If I have already placed the hidden map in my world, and I know where it is, the players will only find it in that place no matter what the dice say. They can't just roll to make it appear where they are looking. If, on the other hand, I have not placed any such map in the world, but the players deduce that one might exist and search for it, I very well may reward their engagement/creativity/initiative by simply let them find it. In that sense, they've created the map.

I also use the 5E variant rule that allows a player to spend an Inspiration Point (which I give liberally and allow players to give to each other) to generate a new part of the world that never existed. My players generally use it for "divine intervention" type effects. The only caveat is that the effect they create has to make sense in the context of the game world. For example, they couldn't use Inspiration to negate a critical hit or heal a PC, but they have used Inspiration to determine that a known NPC arrives in time to use an actual in-game mechanic to negate a critical hit or to heal a PC. They've also used Inspiration to create an NPC druid who imparted needed information and served as a temporary guide.

 

[pemerton]

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.

What's your approach to, or view of, the GM sharing this information?

I think the more it's shared, the closer we're getting to something like the Diaspora approach, or maybe the Burning Wheel approach, [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] and I have discussed upthread. Whereas if the setting info remains privy to the GM, then it's a bit less clear to me how it provides a common framework or ensures consistency. (Unless we're talking about GM vetoes - but that seems to be the bit of [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s post that you were wanting to depart from?)

EDIT: I found your other related post as I worked through the thread:

The intent is not to explore and appreciate the GM's art - it is to utilise the background information as a tool, a general backdrop against which to collectively create something new, coherent and mutually entertaining.

This, again, seems to lead to questions about how the information is shared/disseminated. Especially if we're looking at somes sort of approach that goes beyond GM vetoes.