What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

Back in the day I'd see the occasional White Dwarf magazine on a shelf, alongside lots of Dragon magazines that (relatively speaking) sold like hotcakes.

Well, guess what non-TSR game figured most prominently in the old Ares section of Dragon? Traveller.

The idea that RQ and Traveller are "niche" games is ridiculous, unless "niche" means not D&D.

from what I've seen of the 5e adventures they're (with exceptions, of course) generally quite a bit better-designed providing choice points, closed loops, multiple means of access, and some engaging/interesting exploration between the set-pieces.

Suppose this is true - that doesn't show that they're replayable in the same way as (say) B2 is replayable - that the players can try again and thus learn (and beat) the "hidden design" (what, upthread, I called the puzzle/maze).

it's by no means impossible or even all that difficult to run a less-contained or even uncontained module or adventure.

No one has assertd that it's hard. I have assertd that the focus of play is being determined by the GM.

From the perspective of the here-and-now player at the table and PC in the gameworld, she's "pulled a string" and achieved some sort of result or reaction. All is good, and the game goes on. Her amount of agency here was, let's call it X.

From the perspective of the DM she's pulled a string that's not only achieved the immediate result observed by the PC and thus narrated, she's set dominoes falling all over the place behind the scenes that she may well never know about...but note this does not in any way change the value of X. She doesn't have any less agency, nor any more; she just did what she did and the game goes on.

<snip>

The PCs might never know of their unintentional involvement in this crime. Conversely, their mage might suddenly find himself arrested for treason and thrown in jail.

It surprise me that you don't see this as Exhibit A in the case that the game is driven by the GM. All the action happened purely in the GM's imagination. The only agency exercised by the player was to force the GM to tell him-/herself a story!

 

[billd91]

Suppose this is so - you think it is, I have doubts about the "entirely unexpected" (eg the GM is not going to be surprised by the location of the map) - how does it relate to the point about trust? Preferring a different approach isn't a sign of a lack of trust in anyone, any more than wanting to see a movie rather than go the comedy theatre means you don't trust the comedians.

Again, viable for what? I'm not saying that various playstyles aren't viable per se. At the instigation of some other posters I've articulated my preferred approach - how does that mean I don't trust anyone?

Let's suppose that you prefer to run a more GM-driven game (eg the GM decides in advance the solution parameters for key questions like where the map is)? Does that mean you don't trust your players?

Clearly, you don't trust that players have any form of agency in any game that has substantive GM backstory and adjudication. You're denying that they do all over the place here and in your response to Lanefan. And you don't really seem to trust us when we say that player do have agency in the games we're running in which we do make use of substantial backstory and adjudication. Your response to MarkB here is fairly dripping with it. "you think it is" makes it very clear that you don't believe him or think it's true. It's like you're calling him out but acknowledge he's not technically lying because he seems to believe it's true.

 

[Nagol]

Not just a quibble.

And yes, I realised this, and hadn't meant to give an impression to the contrary.

One relevant consideration here is what counts as player agency. But let's skip that for the moment and try to work with some generic notion . . .

In your description, what makes me ask about agency is (i) once they hear of the event - this seems to be a heavy degree of GM mediation - and (ii) it's a choice they made - well yes, but not a choice made relative to the fact that some exciting thing is going to be estabished by the GM as part of the fiction that is (in game terms) far from them and hence is (in play terms ie relative to their ficitonal positioning) outside their current zone of action declaration.

To point 1, news takes time to travel, depending on setting trappings. The Imperium is limited by required physical transport jumps each taking weeks of time. News from the other side will take months to reach the military and even longer to reach the civilian population.

To point 2, there's exciting things happening everywhere. Players with PCs based in the Spinward Marches make the choice that exciting things happening near the Zhodani border are more interesting than exciting things happening near Hiver space. When something newsworthy happens near Hiver Space and the news travels widely enough that the PCs can discover it, the players now have new information to base next choices upon. Are enough exciting things happening here to hold their attention or is what is happening way over there interesting enough and seems to have enough staying power to warrant the trek to the other side?

 

[howandwhy99]

Most contemporary D&D play is not "hidden design" in [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION]'s sense. Just to give one example: in hidden design play the ability to try again is crucial: you can go back into the dungeon and have another go (at mapping and thus unravelling the maze; at working out the solution to the green devil face or the orange mist; etc). But very few contemporary D&D adventures are based around retries like that - they are one-way trips through a series of episodes/scenes.

Obvious to anyone, Subverted D&D is not D&D. Like any act of improv, it isn't even gaming. All actual games are designed for repeat play. Unlike stories which an audience simply consumes and then they go stale like an old joke, games are enabling mechanisms to improve oneself at the behaviors supported by the design and play of the game. In D&D's case, the 4 (3 really) roles players can elect to play. All of which require high degrees of player skill and role mastery to achieve high levels.

I think that the bigger the "sandbox", and so the more that the players rely on the GM to present them with bits of it, to make bits of it salient, etc; then the less agency they have, because their cognitive access to the materials they need to beat the challenges (related to [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]'s comments uptrhead about "levers") becomes dependent on the GM.

Seeing as "agency" is a philosophical term and not an actual thing it really really has nothing whatsoever to do with gaming, much less D&D.

Just like nearly every videogame, D&D is a hidden design the players game. IOW, manipulate in order to achieve objectives within its design. The more elements within the design the more options a player can actually game. They more thay have to account for. The more they have available to engage with. Just like every RPG, a D&D player is utterly without restriction* on their ability to try any action in the game. However, whether or not any of these actually occur in the game almost always has little to do with anyone at the table once the campaign begins.

*I agree there should be table rules for good taste, respecting the environment around the players, and so on.

 

[MarkB]

Suppose this is so - you think it is, I have doubts about the "entirely unexpected" (eg the GM is not going to be surprised by the location of the map) - how does it relate to the point about trust? Preferring a different approach isn't a sign of a lack of trust in anyone, any more than wanting to see a movie rather than go the comedy theatre means you don't trust the comedians.

But, to extend your metaphor, in starting this thread, you're not merely saying that you're not interested in the comedians - you're declaring that you can't see how anyone might find them appealing, and basically asking us to explain how comedy works. And maybe our efforts to answer you are just as doomed as those of anybody who's ever tried to explain a joke.

Again, viable for what? I'm not saying that various playstyles aren't viable per se. At the instigation of some other posters I've articulated my preferred approach - how does that mean I don't trust anyone?

By declaring that playstyles other than purely player-driven content amount to "being told a story by the GM" you very much are saying that other playstyles aren't viable as a co-operative play experience. The way you present your opinion suggest that trust is at the core of your issue with those playstyles, but maybe it's something else. I'm not sure what it could be, though.

 

[Emerikol]

I think that the bigger the "sandbox", and so the more that the players rely on the GM to present them with bits of it, to make bits of it salient, etc; then the less agency they have, because their cognitive access to the materials they need to beat the challenges (related to [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]'s comments uptrhead about "levers") becomes dependent on the GM.

I think we are getting our terms confused. That is why I said agency in the sense we have agency in the real world. I can't do anything. I can only do what I'm humanly capable of. In a D&D game using the style I prefer, the player is limited to what his character can do. So he has agency equivalent to what his character would have if such a fictional world really existed. Or at least that is the goal.

My worlds are very much living worlds. A dungeon will never stay exactly the same if a group goes in and then returns later. That doesn't rule out returning in every case though. If a tribe of orcs is seriously mauled by the group then sure they may flee. I try to play them a they'd really act. On the other hand, an ancient tomb discovered by the party which until that moment has sat undiscovered, is not likely to change dramatically unless designed to change or react in some way by its creator.

I have mellowed a bit on styles. I believe my style is a great style and I have lots of very satisfied players to testify to it. I admit I've not played with everyone in the world and honestly I will take your word for it if you tell me your parties are satisfied with your playstyle. We have a world where people are divided over far more important things which I find completely unfathomable so differences over a playing style seem trivial. Just play what you like.

I would dispute though that my style has grown unpopular or is fading away. I think your style is growing and that might give you the appearance of the first statement but I disagree that it infers it. If I have a good DM, I most definitely enjoy receiving the "fiction" of the world from the DM. The history, culture, etc... are all very interesting to me. As a DM, this part of the game is a labor of love. I enjoy sharing these elements with the players. On the flip side the world is waiting to be changed by PC actions. They will change the world.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong but it almost seems as if you are "evangelizing" your playstyle because you feel no one would stay with my style if they had a good experience of yours. Let me assure you that three possible things will result of someone trying your style. They may reject it outright, they may enjoy it while also enjoying mine and view them as two different sorts of games, they may embrace yours and dump mine. And a fourth is they may choose some hybrid. My belief is the player base is full of all types.

You don't have to destroy our playing style to enjoy yours. You don't have to mischaracterize our playing style to enjoy yours. My only beef is when you do that. You can advocate and enjoy your style and god speed to anyone you convert. But falsely characterizing others styles is not right. You don't have to destroy ours to enjoy yours.

 

[Emerikol]

No one has assertd that it's hard. I have assertd that the focus of play is being determined by the GM.

I believe that some DM's just create dungeons or buy modules (or run Adventure Paths) and only give a nod to the surrounding world. Perhaps they even use a store bought campaign setting so they don't have to do much work.

Personally, I've never enjoyed playing in a published campaign setting for that reason. You are criticizing the simplest and least creative version of our style of play. A style that is hardly more than a board game in many cases. That though is a strawman and I believe Gygax's campaign was nothing like this sort of campaign and neither is mine.

Perhaps we need more categories of playstyles. I'd call mine a designed world sandbox game with lots of player agency and player skill challenge within the sandbox. I'd call some of these styles more akin to a cooperative puzzle board game. You know what? If they are having fun what is the problem? Games are about having fun right?

For lack of a better term, I tend to call yours a more story telling style game than a role playing game. Playing a role to me limits you to what that role can do. Whereas storytelling is weaving a story cooperatively with the DM and gives you a lot of metagame agency. And my choice of words is not intended to insult. Just my attempt to get my head around all the styles going around these days.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But design should also be flexible. Ideally, I want to be able to seamlessly mix my pre-determined elements with elements that arise at the table, because the players can take me in directions that I would never have gone with my graph paper, room keys and wikipedia entries, and I want to be prepared to go in those directions. So, for instance, I would never prep a town the way Gygax prepped Hommlet. I might have one or two houses laid out, and then I might have a list of a few other "note-worthy" NPCs with their role and possibly one or two other descriptions, and then I'd allow the rest to fill in as the adventure progressed. My understanding is that this is more or less the standard approach to RPG adventure prep these days.

I know I'm still a week behind...

One of the things I find interesting about the 'typical style' (if there is such a thing) for laying this kind of stuff out, much like you're outlining here, is that it is STILL very much beholden to the archetypal dungeon room key in some respects. For instance I've rarely, make that pretty much never, seen in a product where there were fully elaborated descriptions of the relationships between things. For example a key of this kind might list several family members living together in a house, but what clan do they belong to? Who is their landlord? Do they have protectors, sponsors, debtors, creditors, friends, enemies? I mean, obviously there's only so much you can do in a fairly brief sketchy town plan kind of a thing, but it always seems to me that the social dimension in particular, but also the economic dimension in most cases, is just lost. We may know, as in Gary's Hommlet exactly the contents of every house, but who's going to stand together with whom? What happens when you kill Fred down the street, doesn't he have a brother? A landlord? Someone must inherit his stuff, want to find out who killed him, etc.

In some sense, I think this 'classic' type of setting design, when it comes to settlements, is entirely inadequate to the type of play that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to be espousing when he asks about the value of worldbuilding. I would say that in terms of his needs these social/cultural/economic details are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than the trivia about how many coppers are under Farmer Joe's floorboards and what the probability of finding them is (all of which can and probably should in that kind of play be made up as needed anyway).

Its not that nobody ever thinks about this stuff at all, but its weird how you get these detailed maps of buildings but only at best some incredibly vague idea of who owns them, what their allegiances are, etc.

 

[Manbearcat]

My first post in this thread talked about 3 different types of worldbuilding approaches. One of which was Blades in the Dark. Blades' mechanically weighty system and its setting of Duskvol has the following aspects that make the approach here work:

1) The world is haunted. Outside of Duskvol's lightning tower perimiter lies the Deathlands and the Void Sea where unspeakable horrors, twisted spirits, and mighty leviathans roam. This serves to constrain the sandbox (like a dungeon) and interacts with the game's mechanics (for instance, leaving the city to let your Heat die down is more dangerous than staying within the lightning barrier!).

2) The mechanically deep system is intimately integrated with and synergizes with the setting. For instance, lets talk about Heat (as invoked in 1).

A gang of scoundrels that is attempting to climb the power ladder of the setting (this is a mechanical leaderboard based on tier) is invariably going to attract attention and make enemies. Rather than just having this handled solely as GM fiat (as an extrapolation from the GM's view of the setting, what has occurred during play, what only the GM is privy to offscreen), Blades systematizes this in the following way:

BitD 147-148

HEAT

Anything you do might be witnessed, and there’s always evidence left behind. To reflect this, your crew acquires heat as they commit crimes. After a Score or conflict with an opponent, your crew takes heat according to the nature of the operation:

<Insert table and augment caveats>

Heat can also be accrued in the midst of an operation as a complication.

What happens when you have too much Heat?

BitD 148

When your heat level reaches 9, you gain a wanted level and clear your heat (any excess heat “rolls over,” so if your heat was 7 and you took 4 heat, you’d reset with 2 heat marked). The higher your wanted level, the more serious the response when law enforcement takes action against you (they’ll send a force of higher quality and scale). Also, your wanted level contributes to the severity of the entanglements that your crew faces after a score. See page 150 for details.

How do you reduce your crew's wanted level?

BitD 148

INCARCERATION

The only way to reduce your crew’s wanted level is through incarceration. When one of your crew members, friends, contacts—or a framed enemy—is convicted and incarcerated for crimes associated with your crew, your wanted level is reduced by 1 and you clear your heat. Incarceration may result from investigation and arrest by the Bluecoats, or because someone turns themselves in and takes the fall for the crew’s crimes.

<Insert table about Wanted Level and related sentence/fallout and the mechanics to handle this>

This is something I wanted to talk about earlier, so maybe there can be some conversation now.

What is the impact on play holistically and on player decision-points (with respect to short term tactics, long term strategy, opportunity cost eval, cost/benefit analysis) when 1 and 2 aren't in play? So take the setting outlined above (a haunted world that suffered a supernatural apocalypse...no sunlight...black seas filled with demonic leviathans that must be harvested for their green-glowing ectoplasm which powers the city's most fundamental infrastructure...dark, soggy, smog-choked, cramped, inky canals...like a huanted post-industrial London/Venice/Prague). You're a gang of scoundrels climbing the power ladder of the city and trying to stay one step ahead of the corrupt Bluecoats (coppers) and the more noble detectives while seizing turf/resources, making alliances, crushing your enemies, fulfilling your vices (which will invariably get you into trouble), and staying low enough on the radar that the real city's powers don't deem you a threat.

What happens if:

(a) There is nothing punitive outside of the walls of Duskvol or you have the (spellcasting or tech) resources to handle it?

(b) The power ladder (itself and the gaining and losing of Tier status thereby climbing it) wasn't systematized?

(c) The mechanics of Heat, Wanted Level, and Incarceration were all non-player facing...or weren't well-integrated (with each other, with the setting, with the rest of the game's play procedures/mechanics)....or weren't existent at all...and left entirely to GM discretion/fiat?

Back to the above:

What is the impact on play holistically and on player decision-points (with respect to short term tactics, long term strategy, opportunity cost eval, cost/benefit analysis)

 

[MarkB]

My first post in this thread talked about 3 different types of worldbuilding approaches. One of which was Blades in the Dark. Blades' mechanically weighty system and its setting of Duskvol has the following aspects that make the approach here work:

1) The world is haunted. Outside of Duskvol's lightning tower perimiter lies the Deathlands and the Void Sea where unspeakable horrors, twisted spirits, and mighty leviathans roam. This serves to constrain the sandbox (like a dungeon) and interacts with the game's mechanics (for instance, leaving the city to let your Heat die down is more dangerous than staying within the lightning barrier!).

2) The mechanically deep system is intimately integrated with and synergizes with the setting. For instance, lets talk about Heat (as invoked in 1).

<snip>

This is something I wanted to talk about earlier, so maybe there can be some conversation now.

What is the impact on play holistically and on player decision-points (with respect to short term tactics, long term strategy, opportunity cost eval, cost/benefit analysis) when 1 and 2 aren't in play? So take the setting outlined above (a haunted world that suffered a supernatural apocalypse...no sunlight...black seas filled with demonic leviathans that must be harvested for their green-glowing ectoplasm which powers the city's most fundamental infrastructure...dark, soggy, smog-choked, cramped, inky canals...like a huanted post-industrial London/Venice/Prague). You're a gang of scoundrels climbing the power ladder of the city and trying to stay one step ahead of the corrupt Bluecoats (coppers) and the more noble detectives while seizing turf/resources, making alliances, crushing your enemies, fulfilling your vices (which will invariably get you into trouble), and staying low enough on the radar that the real city's powers don't deem you a threat.

What happens if:

(a) There is nothing punitive outside of the walls of Duskvol or you have the (spellcasting or tech) resources to handle it?

(b) The power ladder (itself and the gaining and losing of Tier status thereby climbing it) wasn't systematized?

(c) The mechanics of Heat, Wanted Level, and Incarceration were all non-player facing...or weren't well-integrated (with each other, with the setting, with the rest of the game's play procedures/mechanics)....or weren't existent at all...and left entirely to GM discretion/fiat?

Back to the above:

What is the impact on play holistically and on player decision-points (with respect to short term tactics, long term strategy, opportunity cost eval, cost/benefit analysis)

Well, on the one hand, the GM can look at the PCs' actions in undertaking a particular operation, compare them against the likely competencies of those investigating the after-effects, and make an educated decision about how much the authorities know about them. Also, depending upon the specifics of the particular NPCs involved, some actions might be disproportionately more or less noticeable than might otherwise be expected.

And on the other hand, if the players find their characters under suspicion, they are free to come up with creative options other than "someone goes to jail for this" - bribing or threatening witnesses, tampering with evidence, causing the police's case to fall apart.