What is *worldbuilding* for?

[BryonD]

One reason I dislike GM-driven RPGing is that these tend to be subordinated in play - so my PC's goal (to borrow an example from Christopher Kubasik might be to woo a princess, but I spend my time hunting for the GM's McGuffin. There's a lot of discussion on these boards about "murder hobos", but I think a certain approach to play naturally tends to lead to it - if there is no significant scope in play for players to express their PCs' dramatic needs, it's natural that their range of character motivations will tend to narrow into ones that they can express.

This is a mistake.
I can't know, but I'm willing to presume that you have experienced it (I'm guessing more than once) and thus presumed this is the way it is for everyone.

But if your claim was correct then the games would not be fun.
If the game was not fun, few people would play it.
If few people played it, it would not be a dominate format of play.
It is a dominate format of play.
A contradiction is reached, demonstrating the starting presumption to be incorrect.

If a player wants to do one thing but instead finds themselves forced to chase the GMs McGuffin, then one of two very broad things has happened:
The player and GM failed to mutually understand the game expectations or
The GM sucks.
Either one of those things will make any game system bad.

I can readily reject the idea that the problem you identify occurs in games run by me or many other games I have played in. I see it as the GM's job to make players beg for more game. The behavior you describe is the opposite of that.
I have seen the results you describe. But there are other causes. And I solved the problem by moving to better gaming groups (or just better GMs)

 

[Emerikol]

That sounds reasonable as a general way of putting things.

But it does leave it open what, exactly, an action declaration to find the item looks like at the table, and how it is resolved.

Some of the recent posts from [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] and me have addressed this.

So I believe I've mistaken your position for something like Iserith's and the reality is it is not vastly different from mine. If I did not know something about the contents of a room, I would of course adjudicate it the way you did though I might roll behind the screen and just say "you see the jug" or "you can't find one". The reality is that in some cases I will know. In others I may have to make a probabilistic DC based on what I know about the owner of the room (with a nod to the Jester's comments).

I enjoy world building. I think a DM that doesn't know his world very well is just not very interesting as a content provider. I grow bored quickly. If I know the DM has a deep understanding of his world, I still don't expect him to know absolutely every last detail. But the better he knows his world the better he can offer a DC that is consistent with his world.

When I play and I believe when my players play in my games, we generally want to do several things...
1. Explore the world in general.
2. Interact with NPCs and build alliances and of course inevitably acquire some enemies. A hero is only as good as his villainous enemy.
3. Dungeons and adventures while interesting and flavorful puzzle combats are not the end all of what we do. As the players grow in power their adventures tend to align with their campaign objectives. They may be trying to build a temple to their God or a fortress in the wilderness.
4. Eventually become a mover and shaker in the world.

It really is very Gygaxian. I just loved the game as he imagined it and never went away from that. And if I got it wrong, then it was a happy mistake because it turned out well for me and my players.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Which doesn't really matter since implied re-rolls if you don't get the two 15+ stats is in the PHB. Method I has a 42% chance of giving two 15's by the way, so few re-rolls are necessary.

http://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/

That still means have your characters are 'unable to survive', which is of course ridiculous. You have pretty much the same chances of surviving with 6 12's in 1e as you do with the 'most likely array' (a 16, a 14, etc). I just don't believe Gygax. Sure, you can keep rerolling and using favorable methods, you could roll 3d6 until you got a paladin (I did it once, it used up several sheets of paper, 12 yr olds do strange things).

It makes quite a bit of difference. You get AC bonuses, spell advantage for magic classes. Extra system shock and survival roll chances. And very importantly, exp bonus if you get a 16 in your prime stat.

Meh, characters of levels 1-3 that are making system shock rolls, and for whom it is critical what their 3rd or 4th choice spell was are already in a bad place. It will help you, SLIGHTLY. I mean, a couple 18s in say CON and DEX will basically be about as good as an extra level, which is nothing to sneeze at (at least at low levels), but even that's just shading the odds in your favor. It is far from being enough to call a character with the 16 and the 14 (or even just a couple 13s) 'unplayable'.

Now, there's a DIFFERENT problem here with 1e. That problem is that, for casters at least, what is quite playable at low level is garbage at high level. A 12 INT wizard will do fine for the first half dozen levels, until spell level limits coupled with a narrow spell selection turns him into somewhat of a joke at higher levels. Actually, such a character is MUCH more on par with the average fighter than the wizard with a 16 INT. Even THAT wizard however is quite gimped above 15th level (not a big problem, but it kinda sucks to survive to that level range and then be denied the real goods).

So, I can see Gary's point, if he's basically gotten to the point of starting people at level 5 and assuming all high level guys are basically casters, then maybe you want to just skip to the good stuff? He sure had a weird way of saying it...

Anyway, for what it is worth, you've won the point on the PHB. I am sure we read that paragraph ONCE in 1978, laughed heartily (or scratched our heads) and went on with things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is something else I just can't grasp.

The paragraph I quoted above holds all the elements that could make up an entire adventure...

- initial information gathering [the sage and related activities]
- travel to the adventure site [potential dangers or threats or encounters en route to the mansion]
- on-site information gathering [exploration around the mansion, and some surveillance]
- exploration part 1 [clearing out any unwanted or dangerous occupants from the mansion, clearing any traps, and maybe mapping out the place]
- exploration part 2 [searching for the map, along with checking for any other hidden secrets or loot the mansion might hold]
- travel back to town [more potential dangers etc.]

...potentially representing several sessions of interesting play, and blows it all off with one skill challenge.

This is fine for what I call "mini-dungeoning", a method I use if I need to quickly update a character who's been retired for a few years wherein what would otherwise be full adventures get boiled down to a few dice rolls; but to run the main campaign this way just smacks of "I want to get this campaign over with ASAP".

Well, step one is to play it all out in a lot more detail than just a single skill challenge. Ideally, in the end we want to come away knowing in the fiction not only whether that hope is realized but how it was realized; and what other interesting stories might have occurred along the way to getting to this point.

Lan-"granularity is your friend"-efan

IMHO it all boils down to overall pacing and what you consider to be the function of this adventure within the overall story arc it is part of. In HoML I have some considerable notes and guidelines for myself about what constitutes action which is worth casting into what forms. Some things contain essentially no interesting conflict (IE the stakes are either non-existent or so trivial that, in the context of an adventure game, they don't deserve to be addressed). If something in this category requires addressing at all, say for narrative consistency, then it is an 'interlude', no dice are used at all, its just a brief bit of narration by one or more participants.

If its more than that, then we have to look more closely. Something prefatory to an action sequence (combat or similar) then it could well be a single SC. In the example case perhaps getting the map is a lead up to the main action (something like the Tibet scene in Indiana Jones, there's conflict but its just getting us set up for the main action). An SC could also simply be the non-combat part of getting to the location of some other action. Several SCs could also CONSTITUTE the main action if its simply not really a combat-heavy adventure. Most likely they'll be interspersed with combats and maybe interludes if there's a pause in the action.

So, I can't gauge how I would handle what you're describing as potentially extensive action. I do like to cut to the chase, that's something that the 4e-like structure of my game does for me.

 

[Maxperson]

That still means have your characters are 'unable to survive', which is of course ridiculous. You have pretty much the same chances of surviving with 6 12's in 1e as you do with the 'most likely array' (a 16, a 14, etc). I just don't believe Gygax. Sure, you can keep rerolling and using favorable methods, you could roll 3d6 until you got a paladin (I did it once, it used up several sheets of paper, 12 yr olds do strange things).

You're seriously claiming that no bonuses at all is pretty much the same as having two higher AC and +1 to initiative? Or pretty much the same as +2 hit points per levels, which allows survival of more and larger hits. Or the same as +1 damage when fighting things with an average of 4.5 hit points(orcs), 3.5 hit points(goblins) or 2.5(kobolds)? Or a +2 on saves vs. magic? Or +25% to reaction rolls, which could mean life or death for the entire party, not just you?

And you keep saying 16, 14, when the game implies that you re-roll until you get a 15/15 or 16/15 or even better. 16/14 is the average, but the 1e PHB states that average isn't good enough.

Meh, characters of levels 1-3 that are making system shock rolls, and for whom it is critical what their 3rd or 4th choice spell was are already in a bad place. It will help you, SLIGHTLY. I mean, a couple 18s in say CON and DEX will basically be about as good as an extra level, which is nothing to sneeze at (at least at low levels), but even that's just shading the odds in your favor. It is far from being enough to call a character with the 16 and the 14 (or even just a couple 13s) 'unplayable'.

Not unplayable, just more likely to die and not have an even chance on the field. You needed two 15s or higher for that.

Anyway, for what it is worth, you've won the point on the PHB. I am sure we read that paragraph ONCE in 1978, laughed heartily (or scratched our heads) and went on with things.

Lots of people skipped or changed a lot of things back in those days. We sure did.

 

[Sadras]

The reason I think the map example is clearer for present purposes is because it invites us to directly tackle the question - when the players (through the play of their PCs) have indicated a real hope that the fiction is X, but it is not self-evident that it should be so, then how do we work out whether that hope is realised or not?

I'm sure someone has mentioned this before (haven't managed to read every single post), but if the finding of the map is a MUST in order for the PCs to get from A to B in the adventure, then the likelihood of finding said map will be 100%. DMs (and especially the ones who have invested much time in pre-authorship) do not generally attempt to sabotage their campaigns with having the PCs fail and unable to progress the story just because they couldn't find a map.

The challenge of finding the map might require the solving of a puzzle, resource cost (combat and/or otherwise) or making an unlikely alliance - but not GM-forced failure. Of course, that doesn't mean that the map will be found in any privy the PCs visit. It still has to be a challenge.
Given the important of the map, I imagine it would require the use of intelligence on the part of the player/s - (combat tactics or otherwise i.e. where to search)

 

[pemerton]

I understand. So the NPC is framed as a stickler for order and presents himself an incorruptible. The PCs attempt to bribe him, you don't say yes - you would instead toggle to rolling dice?

Yes.

How the difficulty for that check is set depends upon system. In BW, the NPC's Will is relevant. In Cortex+, the NPC gets a reaction roll to resist the attempt, and various traits might contribute to the relevant dice pool. In Traveller, the referee is encouraged by the rules to impose appropriate modifiers - given it's a 2d6 system for most rolls, I think that most modifiers have to be confined to +/-1 or 2 or else they'll swamp the dice. (This is also the band of modifiers that Moldvay Basic uses for its 2d6 reaction rolls.) In 4e there are guidelines for setting DCs in the context of a skill challenge which would factor in.

This exact question by @Lanefan is what I alluded to almost 10 pages back and in the other thread touching on the adjudication process.

I'm sorry, I don't remember the allusion. Are you agreeing with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] that you would want it to take longer in play?

 

[Lanefan]

IMHO it all boils down to overall pacing and what you consider to be the function of this adventure within the overall story arc it is part of.

The adventure might in fact have no function in the overall story arc at all, but instead just be a side quest or even a red herring. Doesn't mean playing it through will be any less fun in the here and now.

If its more than that, then we have to look more closely. Something prefatory to an action sequence (combat or similar) then it could well be a single SC. In the example case perhaps getting the map is a lead up to the main action (something like the Tibet scene in Indiana Jones, there's conflict but its just getting us set up for the main action).

The Tibet scene in Indiana Jones was obviously important enough to that story that they bothered filming it and having the actors play it all through rather than just have a character relate it as exposition at some point.

So for a similar scene in a D&D game, I'd say play it through in detail. Don't just reduce it to a skill challenge, as that kinda cheapens the whole thing. Play out the combat, play out the role-play, play out the exploration (though in that particular scene there really isn't much) - in short, take the time!

An SC could also simply be the non-combat part of getting to the location of some other action. Several SCs could also CONSTITUTE the main action if its simply not really a combat-heavy adventure. Most likely they'll be interspersed with combats and maybe interludes if there's a pause in the action.

I don't think this is your intention, but when you describe this it comes across as though you just want to blast through the campaign and get on to the next one.

When pemerton describes a skill challenge from one of his games he makes it sound very complex and involved and time-consuming, but my reading of the 4e DMG along with some adventure modules gives me the impression that a skill challenge would normally be pretty fast at the table - a goal is set, the players state how they're approaching it and what they're doing, the dice are rolled (and then adjusted or rerolled based on how the players make use of the mechanical benefits of their PCs), and the DM tells them how they did. If you're saying you could boil the main action of a whole adventure down to several skill challenges that also means you could easily do the whole adventure in one session; though likely skipping over a huge amount of interesting detail in the process.

So, I can't gauge how I would handle what you're describing as potentially extensive action. I do like to cut to the chase, that's something that the 4e-like structure of my game does for me.

Quite the opposite to my stance, which is that if I can take something relatively trivial such as finding a map or crossing a desert and make a decent playable adventure out of it, I will.

So - the ongoing story has somehow determined there's a map needs finding in a mansion? OK, that mansion's about to become a full adventure site; and out comes Tegal Manor...

In other words I'm looking for interesting and fun ways to keep the campaign going longer, not to make it shorter.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

Out of morbid curiosity, why an assassin? Was that just because they failed their Speed check? Did you roll randomly to determine if an assassin appeared or was that the result of previous story decisions? Why did the assassin cut their head off rather than resorting to, say, poisoned food or a dart?

The assassin is a sometime-PC, from a player who occasionally drops into the campaign. Her most enduring belief was that she would kill Joachim, her former master (because of unspeakable things that he did to her when she was his apprentice). From memory, she actually did the assassinating using a ritual sword she had taken from an orcish servant of the dark, which she'd been carrying around in her backpack for some time and which seemed apt for the deed. (She has sword skill, but not poisoning or throwing skill.)

On this occasion, I was playing the assassin as a NPC (with input, where appropriate, from the other players). The other PCs had drugged her and tied her up, so that she couldn't get to Joachim. But then they got lost in the catacombs trying to sneak into the mage's tower (failed Catacombs-wise). So the assassin woke, and headed to the tower - I can't quite remeber all the details now, but I know she had a chance to taunt the two PCs on her way there (at the table, this was my way of narrating the consequence of failure ie that the assassin has woken and so the competition to get to Joachim first was back on).

They failed their speed check. But what set the DC of the check?

In short, what was the terrain like between the home of the dark naga and the mage tower? Were there multiple routes that could have been taken? Could there have been the main road patrolled by the king's guard that is slow but safe or a faster route crossing overland but passing through a fetid swamp, which would have a higher chance of monster encounter?

That's what worldbuilding is for. Setting the stage and presenting the world

See above. In the end, it was opposed Speed checks. I think the assassin may have had an advantage die from using her Witch's Flight spell to get up to the tower window, but I'm not sure now.

Your decision that a jug or vessel would be common in the tower of a recuperating mage was worldbuilding.

After all, who is to say wizards wouldn't live austere lives like monks with few creature comforts? Or avoid having liquids in their homes to avoid damaging their books? Or use most of their vessels for alchemical experiments, thus making a clean vessel rare? Or even, being a nerdy bachelor, have a slovenly home full of dirty dishes piling up in the unkempt sink.

Heck, even having the wizard live in a tower rather than a small hut or an apartment above a greengrocer is the result of worldbuilding.

I think the past (X >> 20) pages of this thread have made clear what its topic is - namely, the role in RPGIng of GM pre-authored setting. The tower was not pre-authored - as this post explains, I introduced it into the fiction in the first session, because (i) a player's action declaration made me have to establish a wizard's home, and (ii) one of the PCs had the Instinct "Cast Falconskin if I fall", and a tower seemed like an interesting place to fall from.

As far as the vessel was concerned, it was already well-established that this particular mage lived in a rather well-appointed tower and hosted pleasant dinner parties.

 

[Sadras]

I'm sorry, I don't remember the allusion. Are you agreeing with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] that you would want it to take longer in play?

Well it's a pacing thing - so at times I would stretch it out and other times fast track it. Stretching a challenge out does lend itself to a DM adjudicating immediate failure to certain action declarations (due to secret backstory) as the exploration and social activities are lengthened and not constrained to but a single skill challenge.