What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

It does occur to me that the bribing officials in Traveller is a bit of a red herring. The fix is in there as well, because that rule is built in because there's a omnipresent corrupt bureaucracy that player characters will often have need to engage as part of play. So the bribing rule is only in that context against that much larger enforced setting and operates as a mechanical relief valve on that constraint. Fiat rules that deal with fiat setting restrictions aren't necessarily the best examples of things that increase agency. They preserve agency against setting constraints, but don't increase it.

This makes no real sense to me.

It's like saying that combat rules in D&D don't give players any agency - they only preserve agency against the constraint that, by default, a sword thrust in the fiction can be deadly.

All action delcarations presuppose (i) a fiction, and (ii) some way the player wants the fiction to be. (An exception to (ii) is an action delcaration whose purpose is to get the GM to narrate more fiction. But these don't manifest player agency at all, except in the very weak sense of triggering the GM to say more stuff.)

In Traveller there is an implicit setting, which includes officials, and law levels, and the possibility of bribing people. That's (i). And the players can engage with that fiction, and impose their will on it (this offiical will let us through, because I've bribed her), by declaring actions and then getting good rolls. That's the player succeeding in relatoin to (ii). That's agency, in the context of the RPG.

 

[pemerton]

Agreed. But considering a homebrew setting, I guess that building your world in advance is way more easier than deciding and making up everything on spot. Especially when you wish to minimize making mistakes, defying your own logic or to avoid the need to retcon.

My view on that is that "it depends" - what sort of details do we care about, who is etablishing them, for what reason, in what play context?

If you want to (eg) maintain an intricate and consistent calendar, that might be so.

If you want the world to be vibrant and engaing, then maybe less so - I personally think there's no substitute for narrating the setting as part of actual play, which is driven by the responses, contributins, enthusiasms (or not) of the players you're playing the game with.

 

[Sunseeker]

You can count me out on that idea. One of the problems with the 2e ranger was it was full of too many conditional abilities yet it was still stuck on the same XP track as the paladin with its more absolutist abilities. Absolute abilities are a lot easier to administer and plan for on the player side because they're reliable. But because they are absolute, you can plan for them as well.

If you can't run a "lost in the woods" adventure because the ranger has forest as his favored terrain, get them lost in a marsh, or a grassland, or badlands, or the underdark. He's going to max out at 3 terrains, surely you can coax them out to somewhere other than those three.

I'd rather not have to re-write my adventure, my quests and my world every time someone picks a ranger. It is far easier to say the ranger ability grants advantage on such checks than it is to re-write volumes of world-stuff to accommodate them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You can count me out on that idea. One of the problems with the 2e ranger was it was full of too many conditional abilities yet it was still stuck on the same XP track as the paladin with its more absolutist abilities. Absolute abilities are a lot easier to administer and plan for on the player side because they're reliable. But because they are absolute, you can plan for them as well.

If you can't run a "lost in the woods" adventure because the ranger has forest as his favored terrain, get them lost in a marsh, or a grassland, or badlands, or the underdark. He's going to max out at 3 terrains, surely you can coax them out to somewhere other than those three.

My problem with this ability is that it requires getting lost stories to exist to have any impact -- ie, the ability is pointless if I, as DM, don't push getting lost as a complication in my game. For it to matter, at all, getting lost needs to be something that's a threat in the game. At that point, it negates that story in that terrain, so for that to matter and be interesting, I have to push getting lost in other terrains. Bleh.

Most of the absolute abilities elsewhere in the game deal with things that are commonplace in the basic play -- poison, fear effects, etc., that I don't have to make any special effort to include.

That aside, not being able to get lost doesn't imply that you know where you're going. You just always know where you are. If you're exploring a forest, this ability just means the ranger can find places he's been to before or that he has firm description of the location that fits with what he already knows. There's still plenty of exploration challenges in the forest I can throw at a party with a ranger.

I still don't like that I have to make a specific effort to include getting lost as a threat for that ranger ability to even matter. I'd much rather have seen a blanket thing like advantage on all INT (Nature) and WIS (Survival) and WIS (Perception) checks in the favored terrain, and that's broad enough to be applicable to a number of stories instead of the more specific and non-core mechanic engaging abilities that did provide to rangers.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To me, that seems very Gygaxian. In his rules for evasion of dungeon encounters, the first step is to check what the GM's notes say.

If the PCs are defeated by the monsters, and the players come back with new PCs - or if the same PCs who escaped/were driven off return - do you stick to the same patterns of behaviour? That seems important for the players to be actually able to learn and so improve their play.

Hard question?

In broad terms, I think there are at least four, or mabye three-and-a-half (some of this thread might be about whether that half is really a whole!).

<snip>

Huh. It seems you already have a very good idea what you think the answer to your question is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think it's inherent. Which is not to say it's bad.

Look at MarkB's example. It's inherent in that way of handling the bribery scenario that it is the GM's idea about the presence or absence of a bribeable NPC is favoured in establishing the shared fiction. Because the way the shared fiction is established is by the GM creating it; and the player, in play, learns what it is that the GM has created.

When you snip out the full context of a remark and direct your response to an incomplete selection of the idea, it's hard to continue to have a productive discussion. This an excellent point, where you pulled out a sentence fragment of a very short post and only directed your response to that fragment, which allows you to look like you're responding to the points of the post but, in reality, you're avoiding the full question and only answering a part of it. This is a favored method of politicians to control a dialog only to those points they're prepared to respond to, but I don't see how it's useful in an honest and open discussion. Why do you persist in doing this?

 

[hawkeyefan]

So I've been following this thread, and have found it interesting, but I've held off on commenting because I feel like the matter is mostly one of opinion, and it seems most folks are decided how they feel.

But I do have one question that I don't think has come up...or at least not directly.

Is it possible to have an RPG game or campaign without worldbuilding?

What I mean by that is, it seems to me that no matter what setting or system with which you decide to play, there absolutely must be some amount of worldbuilding that happens prior to the start of play. And I mean this in the sense of "worldbuilding" that seems to be hinted at in the OP and throughout the thread, of material pre-authored prior to the start of play.

I don't see how it is avoidable. It establishes the setting and the options/elements/conditions that will be present in play. Now, this worldbuilding can be done by others (a pre-published adventure or setting) or by the GM....but it must happen to one degree or another. It can be minimal, or very involved, and it can probably be either to a fault. Too little and the game becomes a directionless, pass the conch session where everyone is making up elements on the fly that never cohere into anything substantial or worthwhile. Too much, and it could become the GM reading the players a story (his own or one published by a third party).

But is there any game that does not involve some level of worldbuilding? If so, how do these games function? If not, then do we consider "worldbuilding" a fundamental aspect of play?

 

[chaochou]

Let me try an example.

There's skullduggery going on all over the city. The place is rife with rumours and plots and spies and gossip, and into all this prance the innocent naive low-level PCs looking to spend the spoils of their first real adventure. They take a room at an inn, and go out for a night on the town. At some point things go a bit sideways - there's some yelling and pushing and screaming and the party mage ends up having to discreetly charm a local harlot in order to calm the situation down; the charm works, well, like a charm. The mage now has a new friend, adventurers-plus-new-friend go about their merry evening, and a good time is had by all. The adventurers, including the mage, pass out around sunrise whereupon the harlot wanders off.

Player side: mage charms harlot who at his invitation joins mage and friends for a night of partying before slipping away a bit after sunrise. String pulled, result obtained.

DM side: harlot is actually an agent (who, depending on developments, the party may or may not have met later in this capacity) working for the local Duke. She realized the yelling and pushing was a distraction intended to mask something else, and joined the fray in order to get herself into the scene so she could try to determine what was being masked by the distraction. She managed to notice two men sneaking into an alley that she knew led to a hidden access to the Duke's manor house, just before being charmed by the mage and taken along for a night of revels. She didn't report this - in fact, she failed to report at all - and thus the two sneaks get where they're going and none the wiser. Meanwhile other agents who really can't be spared are sent out to search for the missing one, who none too sober comes in on her own not long after sunrise. String pulled, dominoes fall.

Ramifications: next morning word gets out of an attempt on the Duke's life during the night by two unknown men.

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.

I really don't understand what such a DM needs players for. They may as well DM for themselves.

What this reveals, probably inadvertently, is completely self-indulgent GMing. It's purely for the GMs entertainment. You admit the PCs know nothing about what's happening. And will probably never know. And if they do 'find out' all they are ever, ever going to 'find out' is what the GM had pre-decided had happened. I get more agency reading a book.

And then you add in a new layer of GM force. The mage may get arrested for treason. And if he does the players get the joys of unravelling the GMs smugly convoluted plot to clear his name.

Was this supposed to be an example of 'player agency'? Is this the GM in 'full on react mode'? I'm genuinely confused by what this example is supposed to demonstrate. But what it actually reveals is quite telling - players as powerless stooges and pawns being exploited to help spice up a GMs solo game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Prior to that, no one knew them to be true of the shared fiction, because the fiction wasn't established.

I believe this goes to your final argument about the nature of gameplay versus fiction. I address that below, but let's say that I find this answer to be special pleading.

This claim is just wrong. The next passage or two will elaborate.

It's not secret backstory used to adjudicate an action - exactly as you say, the players are looking for the GM to narrate some more fiction.

But if the player opens the door to find the secret exit, and the GM (with no reference to action resolution mechanics) drops down a map with no exit, then that is secret backstory used to adjudicate an action.

They're different cases.

A third case, also different, is if the player fails the check - and so opens the door hoping to find (say) a study but instead finds a kitchen. Or a study infested by bookworms (so to check it out involves risking the papers I'm already carrying). Etc.

You keep saying this, but you haven't yet shown me the difference between narrating more fiction and determining action outcomes.

What is the function difference between 'we open the door to the study' and being greeted with an encounter map and 'we look for a map in the study' and being told there is, in fact, no map? Both are requests for the DM to narrate more fiction, yes?

The central conceit here really seems to be revolving around some distinction between an action declaration that you classify as 'asking for more DM fiction' and an action declaration that you classify as 'not asking for more DM fiction.' You haven't clarified the difference. To me, it really seems to differ only in the established conceits of the game. In BW, you don't ask for more fiction, you introduce a desire for specific new fiction and then the DM provides more fiction based on that request, current fiction, established tropes, and mechanics. In more traditional D&D, you interact with the established fiction to and then the DM provides more fiction based on mechanics, established tropes, and prepared notes. The difference between these approaches is really if it's expected for the player to request specific new fiction or is expected to interact with the established fiction.

And that last line really clicked for me jsut now as to what these discussions revolve around. You're approaching this from the mindset that the player should be requesting new fiction, and therefore the DM denying that request based on pre-determined notes is bad play -- it breaks the expectation that players are to introduce new fiction and DMs are to accept or test that fiction using mechanics. Since you're looking at this from only that perspective, you will consistently reject arguments that do not adhere to that concept. Sadly, it seems that you're so wedded to that concept that you cannot even consider not playing that way to be valid, hence the constant creation of threads and posts that keep circling back to this central disagreement.

Personally, I can play either way. I see merits to both styles, and drawbacks to both styles. I prefer to run in the secret backstory mode, as I'm much more comfortable and have much more experience with that playstyle, and my players, on average, prefer it to the other. Heck, I'm having a hell of a time just trying to get them to shift away from requesting rolls to declaring actions, much less introducing new fiction and rolling with the results. But, as a player, I have no real preference either way. My only preference is for a GM that runs an engaging game.

Due to this realization, I'm clipping out the long response to most of the rest of your thread, as it's more of my trying to understand why you don't see the similarity of things. I will address your final argument, as I find it to be reductive and counterproductive.

<snip>

In my view this statement is false, and only gets a semblance of plausibility because the ficitonal is given (metaphorical) reality.

The orc doesn't exist. There are some words about the orc. Then some more words are authored - the orc is dead, say.

The map doesn't exist; nor does the study. There are some words about the study. Then some more words are authored - the study has a map in it. In the real world, we treat the death of a thing as metaphysically different from the presence of an object in a place for reasons to do with differences in causal processes, constitutive independence, etc (the death supervenes on the thing; the object's existence doesn't supervene on the place, so it might have been elsewhere).

But none of these reasons pertain to the authoring of fiction. Adding a sentence to the orc's description: it's dead; and adding a sentence to the study's description; it contains a map; are identical causal processes. And in RPGing terms, that means they are structurally equivalent game moves.

I believe that you do not see a functional difference between killing the orc and creating the map in the library. However, I do believe that you see a difference between killing an orc and finding a ray gun in the library. And, right there, you defeat your own argument.

To delve into this more deeply: You say that the fiction doesn't really exist. Okay, we'll leave aside the game implications of that statement for now and take it for argumentation. Since the fiction doesn't exist, then whatever you author into the fiction doesn't matter: it doesn't exist. Only the act of authoring is a real thing. So, therefore, all acts of authoring are the same. This is absurd, and counterproductive to discussion. If all acts of authoring are the same, then restrictions such as genre appropriateness or fictional positioning don't matter. You've strongly argued that these do matter, so that means that there is a difference in what is authored into the fiction -- some acts of authoring are preferred to others. Since those limitations are subjective -- there's not objective reason that genre appropriateness be a deciding limitation -- then it stands to reason that many things can impact what can be authored depending on the subjective choices of the participants. Following that to it's conclusion, it would seem that, since you yourself argue that there are some limits on authoring and those limits are subjective, that different styles of authoring can exist that serve to limit what can be authored into the fiction. This means that how the fiction is authored in game is actually based on subjective preferences of the players, and that, depending on those preferences, this can very well be a difference between killing an orc and creating a map in the library.

Returning briefly to the game implications of the fiction not existing -- I find this quasi-nihilist as the very concept of the hobby is creating and interacting withing a shared fiction. Stating that it's really a game of make believe and so has no impact in the real world is saying that RPGs can't engage our emotions and thoughts in ways that benefit us outside of telling ourselves a story. There are a number of games out there that are built on the concept of using the fiction as a separation from reality to explore things in reality -- to beat around the bush, so to speak, of emotionally fraught things and find ways to engage them. This definition also completely disregards LARPing, where there's a mix of reality and fiction ongoing. Or even SCA, where there's a fictional construct that's entirely played out in the real world. Your definition of the fiction as not existing is so against so many core tenets of the broader hobby of roleplaying that, as I said, it borders on nihilism.

That wasn't as brief as I expected.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So I've been following this thread, and have found it interesting, but I've held off on commenting because I feel like the matter is mostly one of opinion, and it seems most folks are decided how they feel.

But I do have one question that I don't think has come up...or at least not directly.

Is it possible to have an RPG game or campaign without worldbuilding?

What I mean by that is, it seems to me that no matter what setting or system with which you decide to play, there absolutely must be some amount of worldbuilding that happens prior to the start of play. And I mean this in the sense of "worldbuilding" that seems to be hinted at in the OP and throughout the thread, of material pre-authored prior to the start of play.

I don't see how it is avoidable. It establishes the setting and the options/elements/conditions that will be present in play. Now, this worldbuilding can be done by others (a pre-published adventure or setting) or by the GM....but it must happen to one degree or another. It can be minimal, or very involved, and it can probably be either to a fault. Too little and the game becomes a directionless, pass the conch session where everyone is making up elements on the fly that never cohere into anything substantial or worthwhile. Too much, and it could become the GM reading the players a story (his own or one published by a third party).

But is there any game that does not involve some level of worldbuilding? If so, how do these games function? If not, then do we consider "worldbuilding" a fundamental aspect of play?

Well, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], for whatever reason, grabs terms that have an established meaning and then imparts a special definition to them that you have to tease out through conversation. He'll also switch to other terminology mid-stride that means the same thing, seemingly giving back the originally contentious term, but then go back to the original term still using his special definitions. I don't believe this to be malicious, I really don't think he attaches much importance to the terms used so, to him, it's all what he's talking about. Frustrating and confusing until you figure out what he's really driving at.

In this thread (and in most threads, honestly) the things he's driving at is DM's using their pre-game created notes to control play during the game. Some things are okay-ish, like in games like D&D with complex combat rules premaking some encounter maps to have fights on and using the MM is okay because those things are hard to do quickly in play. But, even there, there's a line where it's hard to figure out when you cross from okay-ish to nopesville for [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. Trying to find that line turns out to be frustrating, as you usually figure out there's a massive perception difference between what you're talking about and what he's talking about. But, the gist is that he thinks player declarations should only be adjudicated by what they declare and the mechanics of the game and never, never ever, by what the DM wrote down in his notes and isn't known to the players.

Except for invisible things, and beholders in chasms, maybe... again, hard to understand, the ground keeps shifting at the margins.