What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ovinomancer]

Firstly, thanks for engaging the concepts I tried to explain. That's very welcome.

Heh, well you are pretty clear

I think I don't really agree with you. Lets take a game of checkers as an example. Some moves are allowed by the rules of checkers, and some are not, they are invalid. That says nothing about the differences or lack of differences between the ALLOWED moves, and if you allowed more or less types of moves in your checkers game it would change the results of play, but it wouldn't change the nature of the sameness or difference in character of specific allowed moves.

In terms of that sameness or difference, the fact of making a legal move is still the same, regardless of which move it is. It is a move, made by either the red or black player. All such moves equally fulfill the "now the next player makes a legal move" structure of the game. In the same way [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s assertion about the similarity of finding a map or killing an orc is an assertion about the nature of the action in terms of its place within the game.

I'm pretty sure [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is NOT saying that "there is no difference IN THE FICTION between killing an orc and finding a map." That wasn't what he meant (again at the risk of being the interpreter of Pemerton here). I think what he IS asserting is that when the players simply decide to open a door, without any influence over what is behind it nor knowledge of what is there vs what might lurk behind the other door down the hall, then you can't call the decision 'agency' as, from their point of view, either one might conceal an orc or a map, or nothing, and NONE of them will relate any more or less to the concerns of the players, their goals in play, etc.

I think this likewise addresses [MENTION=6682826]CH[/MENTION]auchou's observation that a game where the DM simply responds with his narration to each action and the player's simply wander in a hidden knowledge maze is about as interactive as a 'pick your own adventure' book. It does have CHOICE, but without knowledge there's no meaningful player agency, and the game doesn't, except by chance, address the concerns of the players.

Okay, I see that I went a bit to general and maybe skipped a few steps, because you're talking a bit past the point I was making and why [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument fails. Let me expand a bit using what you referenced, as boardgames are a fantastic metaphor to explain the thinking.

Firstly, the claim was that fiction doesn't exist -- it's not a real thing, it's imaginary, and, as such, it's really only the act of authoring that fiction that's a real thing. This is important because [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument revolves around authoring. To relate this to boardgames, it would be like saying that the rules of a boardgame don't exist, the are not real things. The only thing that is real is making moves in the game, because you don't rule, you make moves.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] goes on to use the framework above -- that authoring fiction is the only real thing, to say that therefore authoring one fiction is equivalent to authoring different fiction -- they're the same act, and, and here's where he skips a number of steps, therefore changing the fictional orc to dead is the same as saying there's a map in the study. However, the steps he skips are the rules applied to how it's okay to author fiction. For [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s examples, those rules are that the authoring adheres to the established fiction, that it adheres to the pre-defined genre logic, and that it adheres to the concepts that it should always revolve what certain authors want over other authors (this last being player action declarations vs DM fiat). To relate back to boardgames, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] wants to say that both moving your pawn one space forward is just as legal as moving your knight in an 2x1 L. What he skips is that this is true in the game of chess, but not in the game of checkers -- that you can play different games with different rules and that those rules are subjective and not objective things -- they are imaginary restraints on allowable moves, just as the conventions of an RPG are imaginary restraints on how authoring occurs.

For some reason [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] misses this crucial point to his own argument -- that it's the subjective restrictions on what's allowable that determine the usefulness and legality of moves. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] so loves a certain set of games that he applies the rules of those games to other games and becomes confused when confronted with games that use different rules. In a way, it's like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] really loves his chess, and when confronted with the move of jumping in checkers, which has the same board, the same number of pieces, the same general concept as chess, stops and asks, "What's jumping for?" When explained, he says, "but that's doesn't make any sense, why should I have to wait until the opponent moves into a space where I can take his piece, and why does that mean I have to move past him. What should be happening is that I can move my pieces according to their unique abilities and take whatever piece I want, so long as it's withing my abilities, by moving into their space?" He's applying a different game's rules.

When this is pointed out, he then retreats to the argument that the rules are fictional constructs and don't really exist, it's the moves that matter and that moving your pawn forward 1 is just as legal as moving your knight in an L. He, again, applies the rules of the game he prefers when he presents this argument, which defeats his argument because it hinges on his preferred rules and doesn't allow for other rules to be equally valid.

As far as agency, yes, your example is largely devoid of agency. The decision to regarding the door being only to open it or not, and the results being being told what's behind the door or doing nothing is an example of very low agency. I think, for this reason, it's a bad example, as what's happening is that people are bringing in larger assumption sets of their playspace and not understanding that that those assumptions aren't universal. For example, in a style where there's a set dungeon, and set encounters, then opening that door is a part of a larger agency to engage that dungeon in the order you wish, and you might have many tools to bring to bear on your decision making on how to do that. In that context, opening that door might be very fraught with agency due to things you've already found or that your very low on resources and opening a new door may bring salvation or ruin. On the other hand, if the game you're playing is one that centers on things the players have indicated are of interest to them and on situations that engage those with stakes, then, sure, that door might just be set dressing and the players shoudn't even be faced with a choice to open it or not -- it's not the crux of the scene. Or maybe it is, but because of things brought to the table.

The point of that example is to show that opening a door as a move in a game is something that, absent any other rules or conceits, is hard to evaluate. It's really the rules you bring to the situation, those completely fictional rules, that turn opening a door into something loaded with agency or trivial and banal. If you only look at the door from one point of view, you'll only see the value of it from that point of view. Someone else may have a completely different opinion of that door and the impact of opening it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why can't it be both? Honestly, I think that both you and Lanefan, by virtue of adhering to one specific style of worldbuilding, are unnecessarily constraining yourselves.

My method is to start with a premise, likely an overarching theme and an antagonist, and "pre-author" the general situation and starting area as is appropriate to my homebrew setting. I'll then summarize all of that in a handout I give to my players to assist in character generation; it gives them context for backstory and some ideas for NPC connections. The key here, though, is that the players are not necessarily constrained by it. They are free to add to it and generate new content.

When play begins, I'll have some mapped locations, timeline of events, and the antagonist's resources all "pre-authored". During play the PCs will interact with those places, disrupt the timeline, and erode those resources. However, we are not constrained by any of it. I can, and often do, alter it during play in response to the PCs actions, player suggestions, and players' use of Inspiration Points. I always have veto power, but I only exercise it to keep things believable and consistent in the context of the setting. (For example, I wouldn't allow a player to decide there was a lightsaber in the ogre's backpack.)

"Pre-authored", secret backstory does not have to be a straight-jacket that limits the GM or the players. It's simply a tool in the toolbox that is useful in some situations - like for GMs that have difficulty generating believable, cohesive setting information on the fly.



As an aside: My players have as much agency as they are willing to exercise. I will occasionally ask them to generate content, especially in response to their request for that specific content, and many players will balk at that. You have to keep in mind that the vast majority of players are weaned on D&D, and D&D does not train players to generate content. It has no action resolution mechanics that specifically ask players to create. D&D players, by and large, expect content generation to fall under the purview of the DM.

One possible, and maybe even likely, answer to your OP is, "Because in D&D that's the way it has always been, and most tables don't know any different."

I have the same issue with players being shy about generating content, and, to me, it appears to be a fear that such generation will be turned against them in some unexpected way. Essentially, they worry that if they present something that they now have a stake in, that the DM will abuse that stake and use it to punish them. I've noticed a high correlation between players that balk at providing content when prompted to be the same that generate character backstories devoid of any hooks -- orphan, loner, no ties to anything, etc. That said, I don't think this is necessarily bad. By doing this, that player is indicating that they don't want emotional attachment to things -- that they want to play a game in a space that doesn't threaten their emotional states. Sometimes this is because they've been subjected to bad DMs that do abuse their hooks, other times it's because that's not what their looking for in their leisure activities.

And that kind of player is fine. I have one (maybe two) in my current game: they don't want things to be about them and things they've indicated they like. They don't want drama in game about things they've come to care about that the other players or the DM might endanger. They don't like feeling like they don't have control over their content. I always take anything they provide as something I don't threaten without permission. If I get my one player to actually not be an orphan, then his parents in game are only a source of positive things -- they're never kidnapped or threatened unless as part of a collective threatening (the world is going to be destroyed kind of thing). Nothing negative is directed at them. On the other hand, I have a player that enjoys having their hooks pulled. I have no fear in putting his hooks in danger or under threat and even applying bad consequences to them as a result of play. I don't go out of my way, and often his hooks are positive interactions (because universal negatives are bad), but I am not concerned if play brings his hooks into conflict.

And this issue, actually, is one of the main reasons I run a secret backstory game -- I have some control over the content that's provided and the things threatened. I don't have a group of players willing to engage and have that engagement threatened to truely play a player-driven game with my current group. I don't have a problem with it (I put glaring hooks in all of my characters, regardless of game and I push them within the confines of the kind of game I'm playing in -- ie, I don't try to monopolize play with my hooks, but I do make sure they're visible). But, when I run, I have to run for my players, and that includes picking a set of play conventions that best matches the group. And player-driven isn't it.*


*We tried Fiasco a few times as an icebreaker/trial of player driven games. Fiasco is great because everyone understands that the point is conflict, but the roles and vignette style keep things in small doses and non-personal. Half of my group had a blast. On the other side, there were 2 that were ambivalent -- they thought it was fun but not something they really liked, and one that didn't make the second game because they didn't like the first. Of course, they like games where they have a clear concept of 'winning', which they define in D&D as surviving and being good at their chosen niche. Fiasco didn't have a way for him to understand how to do better that he could latch onto. For me, I loved the evolution of the story and didn't care who got the most dice.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The last sentence is not correct. The fourth sentence - beginning "the central conceit here" is correct.

In my view the distinction is fundamental. My thinking about it is a mixture of (what I would regard as) common sense informed by experience in RPGing; and Vincent Baker's writings about "boxes, clouds and arrows", ficitonal positioning, and the fundamental act in RPGing (which is establishing some content in a shared fiction).

I misspoke, I didn't mean request as in ask for, I meant request in the sense that the player is presenting new fiction and then asking if it's accepted or tested. Further, I think it's a strong point of confusion that you think your formulation and conception is common, especially given the evidence that secret backstory is the majority mode of play. You note this yourself in talking about posts on this board, and WotC's continued successful business plan involved a major pillar of providing pre-authored adventures, which despite being primarily for DMs (a fraction of the player base) still account for a market share in excess of most indie games combined.

I'd hoped it was clear from the OP that I'm not talking about LARPing, or SCA, or cops and robbers. I'm talking about table top RPGs.

(And to ward of objections from @howandwh99 - I don't think this analysis and account of the "fundamental act" is all that apt for Gygaxian dungeoneering, which in many ways is better analogised to a boardgame. Eg while Gygaxian dungeoneering involves a shared fiction (sorry, howandwhy99) the dungeon map is a real thing, and the players are - among other things - trying to create an accurate duplicate of it by means of their play of the game. But as I said in the OP, this thread takes as a premise that mose contemporary RPGing, including most contemporary D&D play, is not Gygaxian in this sense.

This goes back to my points that your arguments are special pleading -- you're saying that this argument about RPGs deserves special consideration and isn't applicable except where you say it is. That doesn't make it as useful argument. If it cannot be applied to even all kinds of tabletop RPGs, much less non-tabletop RPGs, how is it useful to discussing the difference between those RPGs styles you say it's good for?

<snip>

I snipped out the wall of words in the middle of your post because it read as you going off on tangents - none of it responded to anything in the post you're quoting, and, honestly, I'm not sure that it addresses any points I've made previously. Most of it is uncontroversial, and most of it is you describing how you play in different systems, a topic I'm sure you find fascinating but I understand how those systems work so that's not the crux of my arguments. I have never argued you can't play like that, and most certainly I've never argued you shouldn't play like that. My arguments have focused on trying to explain how I do play and addressing the arguments you use to explain why I don't have to play like that. Largely, you arguments keep trying to establish some concrete reason your method is better (which I readily accept it's better for you) without accepting that there is anything subjective about your preferences.

Obviously the words on paper, the thoughts in players' heads, etc, exist. But the orc, the swords, the study, the map - they are all imaginary. (But see my above remarks about the dungeon map in Gygaxian play - it's a real artefact which, like a board in a boardgame, is a component of play.)

And I didn't assert it. I said:

​

I'll assert it again: adding a sentence to the orc's description, and to the study's descriptoin, are structurally equivalent game moves. They are both acts of authorship that increase the detail about the orc and the study respectively.

You failed to follow that argument.

You claimed that the fiction doesn't exist. This, logically, means it doesn't matter. Things that have no existence cannot, by definition, matter to the real world. This part of my argument establishes that this, in fact, is false -- the fiction does have relevance. The thing you claim doesn't exist does, and that you use that thing to constrain the act of authoring.

So, this part where you say you didn't say that -- well, you did, you did say the fiction doesn't exist, but you didn't mean it. And that part of the construct was to show that you couldn't mean it because the ramifications of fiction not existing in any way would be that the rest of your argument failed.

It fails anyway due to your myopia about playstyles being subjective.

This is all non-sequitur.

I am talking about adding descriptions to established elements of the fiction. None of the descriptions I've posited contradict established fiction, depart from genre conceits, or otherwise collide with any basic constraints on good authorship. (Cf the presence of beam weapons in the Duke's toilet.) Those facts about the added descriptions are not "subjective". They are pretty obvious.

Man, it's really validating to be told that my argument is a non-sequitur (latin for 'does not follow' and meaning it's not even related to the discussion) and then you tell me what you meant is exactly what I said you meant -- that you constrain authoring new fiction with arbitrary and subjective constraints. Only you deny that these are subjective, despite the obvious fact that they only matter to authorship of fiction because you prefer them to not having them. There's no reason you can't author fiction without adhering to genre tropes except that this would be something that you would not prefer happen in your game where you want genre tropes adhered to. So the reason for that constraint is subjective: it's there because you prefer it to be there (and presumably your other players). It certainly has no objective reason to be there -- you can author fiction without adhering to genre logic at all.

So, this is exactly what I'm talking about with your arguments: you are blind to the fact that you're making arguments based on your preferences because you mistake your preferences for objective measures and/or commonly held beliefs.

This isn't true, again as evidenced by all of those ways to play 'let's pretend' that you admit don't fit your arguments. Why do you believe that the ones you include do?

But the difference isn't one of structure or metaphysics (contra [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and others who refer to "Schroedinger's map" and the like).

The difference is that some players want the GM's authorship practices to, more-or-less, track the real-world metaphysics of the imagined things. So the GM is to treat the map as an object which does not supervene on it's location in the study; whereas we can use mechanics to determine the death of the orc which do treat that death as supervening on the orc (rather than being some distinct event that the GM is free to author as if it were independent of the causal processes governing the orc).

Ron Edwards invented a name for this preference: purist-for-system simuationism. Some RPGs serve it very well - RQ and RM among them. My point is that it's not a preference that is inherent in having a rich, complex, "living" world. Hence the answer to "what is worldbuilding for" can't be "because otherwise you won't get a rich, complex, "living" world. And the reason for that is the structural equivalence, as acts of authorship, of introducing a new description about the orc and a new description about the map, which permits the latter just as much as the former to be an outcome of, rather than an input into, actiion resolution.

It's actually very much about the structure. The metaphysics I'll let you argue with someone else, as I'm not terribly interested in determining who has the best way of playing 'let's pretend' and getting the metaphysics of their play correct. That really seems silly (and I direct that to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] equally).

But structure is the core of this: how is the ability to author the fiction structured? In secret backstory games, that structure is to allow players to author fiction so long as it follows genre conventions and meets both the open and hidden fictional positioning. The DM can accept that fiction, test it, or reject it in total or part. If the player declares they search the study for a map, that's in genre, and meets the open fictional positioning (they're in the study and can search). The DM then checks the secret positioning and determines if the outcome succeeds, fails, or must be tested according to the overall structure. Based on the result of that step, the DM narrates the outcome of that fiction. Note that this structure implicitly binds the DM to also restrict their authoring to the same structure: that is adhere to genre conventions and meet the open and hidden fictional positioning.

In the no-secret backstory game, the structure is slightly different. The player is allowed to author fiction so long as it follows genre conventions and known fictional positioning. The DM, however, is structurally limited to either accepting or testing that fiction -- he cannot reject it so long as it's properly formed. The DM is allowed to alter the fiction if the test if failed to whatever the DM wishes, so long as he follows the same authoring structure as the player. The player is not allowed to modify or reject this fiction from the DM.

These are different structures, with power allocated differently. They are similar, and the results of both methods for a given play may be indistinguishable, but other results can vary widely. There's no room for DM rejection without a test for properly formed fiction in the latter, but there is in the former, based on information the player does not have.

So, the argument that there's no structural difference isn't true: it's only true if you make a set of assumptions about play that favor your preferred structure and ignore that other structures of play exist. And there a other structures of play that exist than these two, including a huge amount of increased sophistication and modification of these basic chassis.

Novels and movies also engage emotions. If I could ever run a RPG session that had the impact of (say) The Quiet American or The Human Factor I'd be immensely proud. That doesn't mean those people and events are real.

It's not nihilist to deny the reality of imaginary things. It's just stating the literal truth.

You didn't say that imaginary things aren't real (although that's also debatable), you said that they don't exist. Which makes me ask what it was about a novel that made you feel emotion?

Claiming imaginary things don't exist is saying that ideas don't exist because you can't pick them up or look at them. This is obviously false, as what we're doing here is throwing ideas at each other, and those certainly cause reactions and use to use real world resources to engage. I just spent some of my life responding to this, for example. Why would I do that if the ideas you presented didn't exist?

To address the pivot to 'well, okay, they exist but they aren't physical things' my question is then 'what's your point?' Even if I can't pick up an idea, that doesn't mean that idea isn't constrained by real world thing, or by subjective things, or by other ideas. It doesn't mean that ideas are fungible, or that the idea of hitting an orc with a sword until it dies is the same as an idea that there's a map in the study. Heck, the existence of ideas as things is part and parcel of the argument you are making -- you require ideas to be real and effective to make your points about genre appropriateness after all. So, this sideline you're making about ideas and fiction being non-existent is very, very strange and, as I've said, absurd and not conducive to discussion.

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], I'm replying only to those bits of your post where I think I've got something interesting to say in reponse.

Here I think I just want to say a bit more about how I see things.

By GM control over "big picture" I don't mean so much the setting/genre conventions you raise - I see that as more about reaching group consensus on setting basics (eg my Cortex+ Fantasy game started with a vote for Japan vs vikings, because I'd written pre-gens in a way to deliberately leave either option open). I mean stuff like who the nemesis will be, what the basic trajectory of play will be (eg the final fight will be against Tiamat). Then the nitty-gritty stuff is things like (to go back to an upthread example) whether there are bribeable officials around. So whereever the players look to engage the fiction, they find stuff that's there because the GM put it there. (Your mercenary comany example is more-or-less the opposite of what I'm talking about here.)

Okay, understood. I can see how you wouldn't like it, but I do think that GM determined backstory is a useful tool. And I don't think it need be "where ever the players look to engage the fiction". The GM can determine some things, and leave others to be established during play.

APs are obvious examples of what I've just described, but not the only one.

Now, on club-bashing: that's not my issue (at least, if that's similar to "fairness" which [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] raised not too far upthread). The GM can be fair with secret backstory and I stil wouldn't like it. My issue is that it makes the game about what the GM wants it to be about. So it's a concern that's cumulative with the stuff about framing (both big picture framing and "nitty-gritty" framing.

APs tend to be like that, yes. I have incorporated elements from some published modules, but I tend to alter them so that they are more open and less linear.

I don't really see a problem with the game being about what the GM would like. Or at least, I don't see the problem if it's reasonable. If the players share the feeling, or are willing to go along with it, or if they're allowed to add things that they want so that the game is a collection of things wanted by everyone....then it's simply not a problem.

And on random tables - I agree that they are no panacea, and I'm using them in Traveller because without them it wouldn't be Traveller! But I think they're different from pre-authorship, because (i) they don't lock the GM into one track of fiction, so don't cause the same GM-focus issue that pre-authored framing tends to (the players can even help make sense of the random roll, as with the ambergris example), and (ii) because they happen in the course of play, often triggered by player action declarations (eg roll for a starship encouner when you leave the system), they don't generate declaration-blocking/defeating secret backstory, but rather feed into the resolution of the declared action.

I don't see why a random table result can't generate declaration blocking elements. I can see how it doesn't have to, but I think the risk of it is still there, no?

As for the GM being locked onto one track...I don't think that need be the case if he remains flexible. If my players don't show interest in a story hook or element that I've introduced, then I will change or replace that element based on what their interests seem to be.

I've broken this out because I think it's probably the biggest deal, and has generated the most discussion in the thread.

So first, the player trying to author a solution to a problem. If the problem is a charging orc, the player authors (or tries to author) a solution by rolling the combat dice. If the problem is lack of a map, the player authors (or tries to author) a solution by looking for the map in the study and rolling a perception (or whatever is appropriate) check.

As I said to [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], and have just reiterated above to [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], I think these have the same structure as moves in the game. If one is acceptable from the pont of view of abstract principle, so is the other.

Now there can be reasons more particular than abstract principle that someone allows one but not the other. You have reasons for the GM specifying the locations of maps, but not the deaths of orcs. What I'm saying is that I don't see how that reason can be aversion to players authoring solutions to problems, given that (I'm assuming) you are happy with that in the orc case.

As to whether this sort of pre-authorship used to adjudicate action declaration is "thwarting" or not - I discussed this in some long replies to [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION].

Okay, but if we compare the search for the letter and the attack on the orc, I don't think they're exactly alike. One is the player actively seeking something, the other is the player responding to action from the game world.

What if the orc is 100 feet away from the PC and is attacking them with a bow? Is not allowing the PC to retaliate with a melee attack denying their agency? Is the player free to resolve the issue of the orc in any way he sees fit? Or is he bound by the constraints of the fictional world?

Is that any different than the hidden letter? It's location determines the chance of finding it. The orc's location determines the chance of hitting it with a sword. Both have restrictions based on where the things are in the game world.

The PC choosing to draw his own bow and retaliate is the same as moving to another room to search there. No?

If the player's Perception/Search/whatever check is for the purpose of triggering the GM to describe what is in the room - to narrate more fiction - then saying "There's no map here" is not thwarting. It's givng the player what s/he wanted in making a good roll.

If the player's Perception check is with the desire that the fiction be along the lines of my PC finds a map in this study then saying, without regard to the results of the check, "There's no map here", is thwarting. Because the fiction does not take the form the player wanted. (It would be like vetoing - overtly or via rolling secretly or whatver - the attack roll on the orc, and just narrating to the player, "It dodges your blow" without actually having regard to the result of the to hit roll.)

If players never declare perception checks (or Streetwise checks to find bribeable officials, or . . .) hoping that the fiction will be X rather than Y then this won't come up. But equally a game in which the players spend a significant amount of time declaring checks whose function is to trigger GM narration rather than impose their own will on the fiction are, in my estimation of the situation, being rather passive. They're not really exercising agency.

I think the default assumption of many games, and of D&D certainly, is that the player should describe what the character does and then let the GM determine the outcome based on what's been established and the results of whatever check may be required (Search or Perception or what have you). The player is limited to describing what his character attempts to do.

I think that the approach for the player to attempt to establish game elements beyond their character's actions is less common. No less viable, and certainly it has advantages to it that can create interesting play, but I don't think that many players would expect this to be the case. Not unless it was a specific game designed with mechanics that promoted this approach.

I have incorporated this kind of approach in my game from time to time...not necessarily through player action declaration...but I have asked players to provide world details...."you find yourself in a dungeon....what brings you here?" and the like. They struggled with this at first....and this is a group of players who love to come up with story elements for their characters with the intention they be folded into the game. A creative group of players, for all intents and purposes. But it took a real shift to get them to think that way.

It's probably a byproduct of the fact that most of their gaming experience has come from D&D in its many iterations, and similar games. And with using published modules as a template for how to construct an adventure scenario and run a game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yep.

Agreed except for the bolded bit, on which I only partly agree.

Major worldbuilding e.g. where are the continents, how many moons are there, the pantheons, etc. should be left to the DM.

I think maybe as a default assumption, sure, but I don't see why it must be so. It could be something as simple as the player wanting to play a character from a far off land. I look at that and then ask for details about that land. Let the player provide them...if he doesn't want to, then I will.

Honestly, I try to get my players to put as much into the world as possible. It helps invest them in the world and in the game.

Minor worldbuilding, such as your example of the Fighter's mercenary company below, can be cool when done by a player provided a) that the DM retains veto rights and b) that it doesn't veer into probem-solving
Problem-solving worldbuilding, where a player tries to generate a solution to an in-game challenge by authoring or re-authoring some aspect of the game world, is just another form of either metagaming or cheating depending how/why its done and with what degree of malice.

I suppose if a veto was necessary, then sure, the DM should have that ability. But I try to do everything I can not to have to veto things. That literally boils down to a player saying "hey this seems like it would be fun" and the DM saying "oh well, too bad".

I mean, it would have to be a really compelling reason for me to want to deny a player of something they think would be fun. Especially when I most likely really can adjust whatever I have in mind to accommodate him. And by compelling I don't mean something like "There are no gnomes on Athas!!!!" and the like.

I don't know - a berserker in a court-intrigue game could provide all kinds of entertainment and amusement.

But yes, if something's likely not going to work it's best to say so up front. That way players can either steer away from it or find a creative way to force it to work.

Ultimately, just about anything we've been discussing becomes a non-issue if the GM and players are all on board. If the Gm has racial restrictions in place, and none of the players care, then there's no problem.

Exactly. These elements are in many cases established before I even fully know who the players and-or PCs will be at the time they're encountered. And because of this there'll be times when something comes off as easier or harder than it otherwise might, simply because of who is trying to deal with it. For example I might put together an underground adventure with a lot of undead in it...and then the players run a party of Druids (who do better outdoors) and Illusionists (undead are generally immune to illusions) into it. Conversely, they might take in a group of nothing but high-charisma Clerics who can turn or destroy undead on a relative whim and sail through.

Well here is where I think there can be an issue. It's a matter of what may be engaging and enjoyable for the players. I think Pemerton is saying that some players may not like if the adventure in question does not connect with the characters they've created. They'd like one to flow from the other....or at the very least for the two things to inform each other.

Some players may be fine with a bunch of nature druids in the underdark. They may see it as a challenging adventure or whatever. Others may be annoyed that their group of players created characters with a very specific leaning, and then the DM went ahead and ignored that when designing the adventure.

Especially when, with a little work, the DM can likely switch the underground catacombs to be a forest haunted by undead, or what have you.

I think the attitude of "well this is what the DM came up with, deal with it" is what's being questioned a bit. And I can understand that.

Again, as we said above, if everyone's cool with whatever is happening, there's no issue. But if there is an issue....I would wonder why a DM would rather play what he's made when the players would clearly prefer something else.

This sort of thing, as I said above, can be all kinds of cool as long as the DM retains the right of veto (though in this particular example it's hard to think of any reason to veto it).

Well in this case, sure, hard to think of a reason to veto it. And certainly the player didn't necessarily expect me to adopt the mercenary company to the extent that I did, so a lot of it was up to me....but again, why not do all I can to engage the players and get their buy in?

Now this would be something I may or may not do, depending on circumstances. Maybe the mercenary company eventually become part of the story's villainy - the party have to go through them to get to whoever's sending them out on these "loathsome contracts", for example. But the mercenaries - either some individuals or together as a company - would probably rear their ugly heads at some point.

Lanefan

I pretty much replaced one militaristic bad guy with the mercenary company, and then tied the company to another group I had in mind. They've become a significant source of conflict for the players, and the players have a vested interest in taking them down....so the hooks that I introduce involving the group appeal to the players.

 

[Lanefan]

I think maybe as a default assumption, sure, but I don't see why it must be so. It could be something as simple as the player wanting to play a character from a far off land. I look at that and then ask for details about that land. Let the player provide them...if he doesn't want to, then I will.

Honestly, I try to get my players to put as much into the world as possible. It helps invest them in the world and in the game.

Fair enough.

The example of a character from a far-off land is a good one. For my part, when I design a world there's usually vast swathes of it left blank - mostly because I'm concentrating on the parts where most or all of the adventuring is likely to take place - and if someone wants to fill in a bit of the blank page they're welcome to do so. However, the risk there is that doing so might run up against something specific I have in mind for what is now a blank bit; and to have to move or alter what the player does might hint at or completely give away a reveal that's not supposed to happen for years. (at risk of my players reading this: my current world has a number of these sort of elements - specific things in specific locations in the middle of what looks like a vast ocean of blank map, with those specific locations tied to specific story bits that will in theory come up later either in this campaign or a future one, depending how things go)

I suppose if a veto was necessary, then sure, the DM should have that ability. But I try to do everything I can not to have to veto things. That literally boils down to a player saying "hey this seems like it would be fun" and the DM saying "oh well, too bad".

I mean, it would have to be a really compelling reason for me to want to deny a player of something they think would be fun. Especially when I most likely really can adjust whatever I have in mind to accommodate him. And by compelling I don't mean something like "There are no gnomes on Athas!!!!" and the like.

Come on, man - you know in your heart that banning Gnomes is always the best option.

But if a player wants to play a full Vampire as a character in a low-level party - and I've had this happen - yeah, out comes the veto hammer. (this was before the days of templates)

Ultimately, just about anything we've been discussing becomes a non-issue if the GM and players are all on board. If the Gm has racial restrictions in place, and none of the players care, then there's no problem.

And even if one or more players do care, there's often room for compromise. But if that fails, in the end it's the DM's game.

Well here is where I think there can be an issue. It's a matter of what may be engaging and enjoyable for the players. I think Pemerton is saying that some players may not like if the adventure in question does not connect with the characters they've created. They'd like one to flow from the other....or at the very least for the two things to inform each other.

Some players may be fine with a bunch of nature druids in the underdark. They may see it as a challenging adventure or whatever. Others may be annoyed that their group of players created characters with a very specific leaning, and then the DM went ahead and ignored that when designing the adventure.

Where I posit that the DM, in neutrally designing the world, should as a part of that neutrality be actively trying to ignore what the players are doing.

When faced with an adventure they're clearly not set up for the players - in character - can always choose to abandon the mission and go elsewhere, or to recruit or hire some NPCs that can help cover their weak points, or to take a much more cautious and-or different approach that plays a bit more to their strengths, or whatever.

Especially when, with a little work, the DM can likely switch the underground catacombs to be a forest haunted by undead, or what have you.

While this is true, it's also verging into the very gray area of DM metagaming - a whole other can o' worms.

I think the attitude of "well this is what the DM came up with, deal with it" is what's being questioned a bit. And I can understand that.

Again, as we said above, if everyone's cool with whatever is happening, there's no issue. But if there is an issue....I would wonder why a DM would rather play what he's made when the players would clearly prefer something else.

First, it's not always clear what the players would prefer. Even if they all roll up Nature Clerics it doesn't mean they're looking to play the whole game in the forest; just that they want a lot of available healing no matter what transpires.

Second, most players IME are looking for a fun game with beer and monsters and aren't all that serious about much else. Which leads to something we all need to keep in mind here: not everyone - and I'm often in this number, when a player - takes this all that seriously, or puts much thought into it beyond their own character, maybe a bit of the overarching story, and the here-and-now of the in-game situation; and some don't even get that far. From what I've read here and elsewhere I'd hazard a guess that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and his players take this all far more seriously than I'd ever want to - a rather gulf-like difference in playstyles.

Well in this case, sure, hard to think of a reason to veto it. And certainly the player didn't necessarily expect me to adopt the mercenary company to the extent that I did, so a lot of it was up to me....but again, why not do all I can to engage the players and get their buy in?

I pretty much replaced one militaristic bad guy with the mercenary company, and then tied the company to another group I had in mind. They've become a significant source of conflict for the players, and the players have a vested interest in taking them down....so the hooks that I introduce involving the group appeal to the players.

The advantage you had was that the player in this case handed you something you could fairly easily put to use and that would likely engage all involved, and you ran with it. Unfortunately not everything is as simple.

Example: I once had a player who rolled up a character and then came up with a great long drama-riddled (and rather depressing) backstory for it which was intended to spill over into the ongoing run of play once the PC joined the party. Great fiction, great foundation for roleplaying the character, but when as DM I'm looking at a choice between trying to involve everyone in (or drag everyone into) this one character's personal angst or playing through something that's more fun and cheerful for all then yeah - easy choice; and the drama gets swept under the rug.

Lanefan

 

[hawkeyefan]

Fair enough.

The example of a character from a far-off land is a good one. For my part, when I design a world there's usually vast swathes of it left blank - mostly because I'm concentrating on the parts where most or all of the adventuring is likely to take place - and if someone wants to fill in a bit of the blank page they're welcome to do so. However, the risk there is that doing so might run up against something specific I have in mind for what is now a blank bit; and to have to move or alter what the player does might hint at or completely give away a reveal that's not supposed to happen for years. (at risk of my players reading this: my current world has a number of these sort of elements - specific things in specific locations in the middle of what looks like a vast ocean of blank map, with those specific locations tied to specific story bits that will in theory come up later either in this campaign or a future one, depending how things go)

It really does depend on the elements in question.

But, I'd personally tend to worry more about the game that is happening now rather than a possible element for a later game. Especially when whatever future element might be at risk can be reworked in whatever way needed.

Come on, man - you know in your heart that banning Gnomes is always the best option.

But if a player wants to play a full Vampire as a character in a low-level party - and I've had this happen - yeah, out comes the veto hammer. (this was before the days of templates)

Sure, but most likely such a character isn't actually promoted by the rules, so I don't even know if that constitutes a veto. The rules already don't allow such a character.

And even if one or more players do care, there's often room for compromise. But if that fails, in the end it's the DM's game.

Where I posit that the DM, in neutrally designing the world, should as a part of that neutrality be actively trying to ignore what the players are doing.

Well, ultimately, it's actually everyone's game. I know we tend to attribute some level of ownership to the game on the DM....but it's still everyone else's time to have fun too. And yes, the DM may put more into the game, so we kind of default to him having final say or veto or whatever you want to call it. I get that, and it's pretty much how my group handles things because everyone's okay with that.

But if the DM isn't doing all this work ahead of time and is instead playing along the lines that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is advocating, then it's even less the "DM's game", isn't it? This is probably where a big part of the disconnect is coming from.

I mean, if you had friends over to watch a movie and they made a choice, you probably wouldn't veto the choice and say "well it's my Blu-Ray player". So it's a bit odd to do that in an RPG.

When faced with an adventure they're clearly not set up for the players - in character - can always choose to abandon the mission and go elsewhere, or to recruit or hire some NPCs that can help cover their weak points, or to take a much more cautious and-or different approach that plays a bit more to their strengths, or whatever.

While this is true, it's also verging into the very gray area of DM metagaming - a whole other can o' worms.

I don't think the DM needs to be neutral about the party when designing adventures and so on. I think it's probably best if he designs things with the specific players and characters in mind.

I get your approach. It's a bit more classic in that you have an idea for an adventure and it's the same no matter who comes to try it. Much like the old modules. Nothing wrong with that.

I think I lean toward Pemerton here, even if we approach it differently, in that I prefer a game where the story and the characters are more connected. The story I tell must be about those characters...it's their journey, not anyone's who happens to come along.

First, it's not always clear what the players would prefer. Even if they all roll up Nature Clerics it doesn't mean they're looking to play the whole game in the forest; just that they want a lot of available healing no matter what transpires.

Second, most players IME are looking for a fun game with beer and monsters and aren't all that serious about much else. Which leads to something we all need to keep in mind here: not everyone - and I'm often in this number, when a player - takes this all that seriously, or puts much thought into it beyond their own character, maybe a bit of the overarching story, and the here-and-now of the in-game situation; and some don't even get that far. From what I've read here and elsewhere I'd hazard a guess that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and his players take this all far more seriously than I'd ever want to - a rather gulf-like difference in playstyles.

That's very possible. Who knows? We're all here discussing it at length, so it seems that we all at least assign some importance to it.

What I would say is that Pemerton and his players have a play style that involves creative collaboration more so than yours, which is a more relaxed "beer and pretzels" type of game.

The advantage you had was that the player in this case handed you something you could fairly easily put to use and that would likely engage all involved, and you ran with it. Unfortunately not everything is as simple.

Example: I once had a player who rolled up a character and then came up with a great long drama-riddled (and rather depressing) backstory for it which was intended to spill over into the ongoing run of play once the PC joined the party. Great fiction, great foundation for roleplaying the character, but when as DM I'm looking at a choice between trying to involve everyone in (or drag everyone into) this one character's personal angst or playing through something that's more fun and cheerful for all then yeah - easy choice; and the drama gets swept under the rug.

Lanefan

Sure....some players can try and make it all about what they want. I find that annoying, too.

I think that for Pemerton, that same annoyance applies to the GM wanting to do that.

Your playstyle requires the DM to take the reins and do the bulk of worldbuilding, so you don't even see how that could be an issue. But in his game, worldbuiling is split more evenly among all parties, so any single party trying to control the game is seen as a negative.

At least, that's my take on the things.

 

[Lanefan]

It really does depend on the elements in question.

But, I'd personally tend to worry more about the game that is happening now rather than a possible element for a later game. Especially when whatever future element might be at risk can be reworked in whatever way needed.

OK, though in some cases such reworking is easier than others (mine involves some things being at very precise points on the planet, which it took some math and geometry to come up with...I'd rather not have to do that again ).

Sure, but most likely such a character isn't actually promoted by the rules, so I don't even know if that constitutes a veto. The rules already don't allow such a character.

There's those who would say a rules veto is the same as a DM veto in a case like this.

I mean, if you had friends over to watch a movie and they made a choice, you probably wouldn't veto the choice and say "well it's my Blu-Ray player". So it's a bit odd to do that in an RPG.

In our crew, if someone invites friends over to watch a movie the movie to ve watched is usually included in the invite. That way, people who aren't interested in that movie know what they're in for should they choose to attend.

I don't think the DM needs to be neutral about the party when designing adventures and so on. I think it's probably best if he designs things with the specific players and characters in mind.

I get your approach. It's a bit more classic in that you have an idea for an adventure and it's the same no matter who comes to try it. Much like the old modules. Nothing wrong with that.

I think I lean toward Pemerton here, even if we approach it differently, in that I prefer a game where the story and the characters are more connected. The story I tell must be about those characters...it's their journey, not anyone's who happens to come along.

However in my case "anyone who happens to come along" is a near-inevitability as time goes by - the campaigns are many years long, players come and go, characters die or retire or whatever and then may or may not resurface years later, and so on. Just a few weeks ago with not too much warning* I had a player come back into my game who had been out for 4 years; he rebooted one of his characters who had kind of been left hanging, we updated it out-of-session and engineered a way for him to meet the party, and away we went.

There's no way on earth I can plan for that.

* - he came to our Yule party, we got talking, he showed interest in getting back in as real life was now allowing the time for it. Nobody objected, and a few weeks later after we'd all got over the flu, in he came.

Many times I don't even know ahead of time what characters will be in the party. Most of my players have a bunch of 'em, and they get cycled in and out between adventures depending on which one(s) the player feels like playing. Only when we're on a semi-hard AP within the campaign (like right now) can I predict a reasonably consistent party for a run of a few adventures.

Sure....some players can try and make it all about what they want. I find that annoying, too.

I think that for Pemerton, that same annoyance applies to the GM wanting to do that.

Where in my view the DM is, in the end, fully allowed to do that...though if she goes overboard on it she risks losing her players; so some degree of give and take is inevitable. In the end, though, the DM rules.

Lan-"a sign on my first DM's screen read 'THE DM IS GOD. ABIDE OR DIE.' and I've lived by that ever since"-efan

 

[Emerikol]

Yes, they do.

In [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s example, the players' knowledge of the cart is practically zero, their knowledge that they've pushed it over much the same, and their ability to ascertain and manage the consequences in any sort of proactive manner very close to zero also.

That may be the crux of the matter. People like myself don't want to create things outside our characters. At least not when we are playing this particular style of play. When I play, I want to "explore" the world and I want my DM to know it pretty well so that he isn't making it up as he goes which I can detect almost immediately. And yes of course if you had a sufficiently advanced AI as DM this could be hidden from me. So far no human has pulled it off.

So exploration is a big deal. And to me exploration to discovering something not creating it. Again that is how I feel. If I played in your style of game I'd obviously feel very creative but I'd feel like the world wasn't very solid under my feet. I want that feeling and I tend to avoid DMs that won't give it to me. Now I admit I DM more than I play though of late I've done neither due to being in a new town with a very busy job.

I think if we were all traveling in a car somewhere and just wanted to play a thought experiment style of game where we created the fiction as we go I might do it since playing my style would be very hard. I'm not saying it couldn't be at least more fun than counting busted headlights on volkswagon beetles. (you also avoid getting slugged in some variations). But I am sure I wouldn't find it as satisfying as playing in my style around a table.

Here is an example of a really great product and why I thought it was great. Ptolus. A detailed city with a ton of hooks for adventures. Players are free to go anywhere they want. The city is the sandbox. That doesn't mean there aren't adventures with rooms but it's take it up as you wish. And of course mess with the wrong people and you might have trouble on your hands. All detailed out. As DM, I'd still add more but I like it. The original book has risen steadily in value but I haven't considered selling it.

Constructively, where do you see this thread going? Is it style evangelism by you?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think each certainly has some worldbuilding going on(in the more widely applied sense as opposed to Pemerton's more narrow definition in this discussion). Simply choosing the overall setting, and creating PCs has likely forced certain world elements to be established. These may be minimal, but they are there, and some may likely have larger world implications (a cleric character may imply a deity or a pantheon; an alien PC establishes that humans are not alone in the galaxy; etc.).

Now, in each case, it is very possible that there is no larger story the GM has established, or that is inherent in the setting. So the action of the PCs, and their story, may be entirely undetermined, and may be revealed as they go. I have indeed played games like this, where I have asked the players to establish bits about the characters and the world as we go.

But I don't know if a true story....any kind of narrative element beyond describing the actions of the PCs....will really emerge unless someone instigates it. very often that seems to be the job of the GM, but it could just as easily be a player. Someone has to do it though....they have to add that one element or take that one action that kind of forces things one way. It could be the reason they're in the dungeon, or it could be the mission statement of their crew, or whatever.

Well, I can tell you about a game I ran several years ago. It was with some people I've played with a lot and I'd consider them to be 'advanced' in terms of being into RPGs and having a good idea of how to make things work, so we were in a "lets see what we can do" mode.

So, we all sat down together (online actually, but whatever) and invented a concept for a game. Someone proposed, or we were already kind of talking about, medieval chivalric tales, Arthurian legend and other somewhat similar stuff (there was actually a very wide range of material in those days, even if you limit yourself to say France). I proposed we use a diceless lightweight FATE-like system (maybe its even more like Cortex+ as it has a concept of a pool, though the mechanical details are different). So the other players generated characters, described basically the kind of place they were going to find themselves, the parameters of what they wanted to accomplish, etc.

I played the role of GM, which is needed in this system to generate conflict out of the pool of 'stones' and to help regulate the level of tension in the game. Everyone else described characters and what they were doing, and explained how their actions related to the setting, inventing new details in a collaborative way as they seemed needed. In that sense there were no 'secrets', all the PLAYERS know what the world state is, and we can do anything we want with it, including retcons I guess if we wanted.

One thing I did do was create a map at one point of the 'Land of Alleterre' where the story takes place, and some areas around it. This amounted to a reasonably significant contribution to the overall setting, but it was highly consonant with what we were all going for. It was also open enough that castles and towns and forests, and monster lairs or whatever could be added as needed.

So, there was plenty of world building in the most general sense, I ended up with a fairly hefty 20 or 30 pages of material on the region, as well as a decent map. We played out a good bit of the story we were interested in and then went on to other things. It was fun, and I think it probably basically conformed to the sort of scene-framing type of thing that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is usually doing (from what I can tell).

Truthfully, I think when I hear you guys debating about the map in the room and who gets to decide where it is and when, I think the essence of the question, from a scene-framing standpoint, has been lost. What is this map about? Why is the PC trying to find it? What is he willing to stake on finding it, and what are the consequences if it isn't found? I mean, if its just a map that you might find by chance, then who cares? If it isn't something that the players know will shape the story, then it doesn't even exist. I mean, until some element enters into the story, its just a notion in someone's imagination, or maybe a note scribbled in a notebook that nobody else has ever read. Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the forest and nobody hears it? Does an imaginary map exist if nobody finds it?

The point being that that whole debate is pointless until you talk about the greater context. In a Gygaxian sort of game the map is simply a possible resource that may or may not be found, and [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] is right, a check to find it resolves nothing but the check, either way the character succeeded. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] SHOULD see it the same way! NOTHING IS AT STAKE THAT WE KNOW OF, so there cannot BE 'success' or 'failure' by his criteria!

Once the map NEEDS to be found, because it is now a part of the narrative in terms of furthering or resolving some conflict in the game, then by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s method of play, the PLAYER is entitled to (either by fictional positioning of his character, or by use of a meta-game construct in the rules of play) exercise his agency in the game to bring about a chance of finding that map, regardless of any 'puzzle-solving' aspect of the game. If its just a matter of the character lacking the knowledge to have the agency to control his destiny then in 'Pemertonian' terms the scenario is a railroad, or at least lacks a potential positive outcome that could exist. Its not the case that the player must get his way, BTW, it is only the case that he should have a way to WAGER on success. Failure will propel the scenario into a region of greater stakes and greater tension, which is a perfectly fine outcome for all concerned!