What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

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.

Each toll in a skill challenge should change the fiction. (I think this was pretty obvious in the DMG - it was spelled out explicitly in the DMG2.) So it's not about totalling up the rolls.

So each check has to be framed, stakes established, roll made, consequences narrated. Plus there is often bridging narration to manage continuity etc.

I should add here, I'm talking primarilyi about complexity 3 to 5 skill challenges (ie 8 to 12 successes required). A small complexity 4 skill challenge may not be as intricate - that said, there is currently an active skill challenge thread on the <5E sub-forum which has some illustrations of how even a low complexity skill challenge can involve significant evolution in the fiction.

 

[Manbearcat]

Each toll in a skill challenge should change the fiction. (I think this was pretty obvious in the DMG - it was spelled out explicitly in the DMG2.) So it's not about totalling up the rolls.

So each check has to be framed, stakes established, roll made, consequences narrated. Plus there is often bridging narration to manage continuity etc.

I should add here, I'm talking primarilyi about complexity 3 to 5 skill challenges (ie 8 to 12 successes required). A small complexity 4 skill challenge may not be as intricate - that said, there is currently an active skill challenge thread on the <5E sub-forum which has some illustrations of how even a low complexity skill challenge can involve significant evolution in the fiction.

I don’t understand how after a million, in-depth posts on the subject there is still this fundamental disconnect on how 4e Skill Challenges work.

WHAT SKILL CHALLENGES ARE NOT:

* an exercise in dice rolling where the fiction doesn’t matter

* a bunch of tallied up dice rolls then the GM tells a story

WHAT SKILL CHALLENGES ARE:

1) Initially framed situation with something at stake and an approach on how to attain it or avoid it.

2) Player(s) action declaration on how to handle present obstacle.

3) Dice resolve that action declaration.

4) This micro success or failure LEADS TO A CHANGE IN THE GAMESTATE. The fictional situation evolves either positively (and a new complication emerges later emerges) or negatively (and the present situation snowballs either into something new and dire or the present situation escalated)

5) This continues until the conflict resolution framework says the scene is over (won or lost), at which time the gamestate changes dynamically based on (1) and the context of the aggregate fiction
of the SC.

6) The above should yield a dramatic arc.

 

[Jester David]

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.

If the tower was established in the first session, it was pre-authored.

Again, by limiting worldbuilding to stuff authored "by the GM" you're imposing an artificial limit. Worldbuilding is the creation of the setting and its purpose is the same regardless of the source: the GM, the GM and the players, the players, a campaign setting, a novelist, or a random table.

The existence of a tower was still you. The player wanted a home and another player had an Instinct related to falling. So you made a tower. It could have easily been a dwelling built into the side of a cliff, a house on a tree, a keep on a floating island, a hut on chicken legs, a house constructed on the ruins of an ancient bridge, or just a small manor atop a cliff.
Because of the conventions established of wizards (the trope, which is a form of existing worldbuilding) you chose a tower. You made the worldbuilding decision that mages in your setting live in mage towers and match the tropes rather than subverting them.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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)

While I agree with you overall...if finding the map is meant to be a challenge, then make it so, if not then don’t have it be hidden...I am often amazed at how many old modules I read through that do exactly what you describe in your first paragraph. Some element of the story or location is only accessible by one method and if the PCs are incapable of using that method, or if they fail their attempt, then that’s it. Usually, this was the presence of a secret door that was the only way to reach the final section of the dungeon. It seriously happened a lot, and the game kind of assumes an “oh well, you failed” attitude.

I think it’s an artifact of what the game was in those early days that has carried over a bit because of how often those materials are looked at for inspiration or guidance in adventure design. I have played in games where things have ground to a halt and we’re all just wandering the entire dungeon again trying to find whatever it is that we mossed that will allow us to complete the module. When that happens, I find it to be the most frustrating and boring experience. And 9 times out of 10, the DM eventually goes “okay so you go back to the master bedroom and you twist the southeastern bedpost counter clockwise and the nearby bookcase slides aside to reveal a tunnel”.

For me, that’s an awful gaming experience. And although modern game design has largely moved past it, it’s lingered enough in theh old material or in homebrew games of major fans of the old material that I’ve come across it. I make a conscious effort to make sure my games don’t fall into this trap.

 

[Lanefan]

While I agree with you overall...if finding the map is meant to be a challenge, then make it so, if not then don’t have it be hidden...I am often amazed at how many old modules I read through that do exactly what you describe in your first paragraph. Some element of the story or location is only accessible by one method and if the PCs are incapable of using that method, or if they fail their attempt, then that’s it. Usually, this was the presence of a secret door that was the only way to reach the final section of the dungeon. It seriously happened a lot, and the game kind of assumes an “oh well, you failed” attitude.

Exactly, and from my perspective there's nothing wrong with this at all. Overall mission failure, sometimes with downstream consequences, is a perfectly valid outcome.

I think it’s an artifact of what the game was in those early days that has carried over a bit because of how often those materials are looked at for inspiration or guidance in adventure design. I have played in games where things have ground to a halt and we’re all just wandering the entire dungeon again trying to find whatever it is that we mossed that will allow us to complete the module. When that happens, I find it to be the most frustrating and boring experience. And 9 times out of 10, the DM eventually goes “okay so you go back to the master bedroom and you twist the southeastern bedpost counter clockwise and the nearby bookcase slides aside to reveal a tunnel”.

I'd be the other 1 time then; as I'll let 'em wander as long as they want to wander, knowing full well that eventually they'll either find what they're after or pack it in and go back to town. It's not like most parties don't have some heavy-duty means of finding things - divinations, devices, whatever - so I don't have that much sympathy.

Also, nothing says they have to succeed every time.

For me, that’s an awful gaming experience. And although modern game design has largely moved past it, it’s lingered enough in theh old material or in homebrew games of major fans of the old material that I’ve come across it. I make a conscious effort to make sure my games don’t fall into this trap.

Success after frustration and effort is always much more satisfying than success without any.

Lanefan

 

[hawkeyefan]

Exactly, and from my perspective there's nothing wrong with this at all. Overall mission failure, sometimes with downstream consequences, is a perfectly valid outcome.

I'd be the other 1 time then; as I'll let 'em wander as long as they want to wander, knowing full well that eventually they'll either find what they're after or pack it in and go back to town. It's not like most parties don't have some heavy-duty means of finding things - divinations, devices, whatever - so I don't have that much sympathy.

Also, nothing says they have to succeed every time.

Success after frustration and effort is always much more satisfying than success without any.

Lanefan

I don't necessarily disagree with your points in a general way....failure can be fine, and frustration can be a motivator or can help add to emotional connection to the game.....but it's not about that.

Let me put it this way. If you're playing a game, would you rather your character be dealing with something new....an unknown dungeon room, or a new part of a quest, or an interaction with a long sought NPC....or would you rather your character be walking through the cleared rooms of a dungeon waiting to roll high enough to find the secret door that leads to the rest of the adventure?

Choose.

Everyone's going to choose the first option every time. So shouldn't a goal of play be to try and maintain that throughout?

 

[pemerton]

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.

if finding the map is meant to be a challenge, then make it so, if not then don’t have it be hidden...I am often amazed at how many old modules I read through that do exactly what you describe in your first paragraph. Some element of the story or location is only accessible by one method and if the PCs are incapable of using that method, or if they fail their attempt, then that’s it.

<snip>

I have played in games where things have ground to a halt and we’re all just wandering the entire dungeon again trying to find whatever it is that we mossed that will allow us to complete the module.

These remarks seem oriented towards a style of play which is (in a broad sense) puzzle/mystery solving - CoC adventures can be like that, where if you don't solve the puzzle then you lose the adventure (in the sense that you can't continue) - or, alternatively, which is about playing through the pre-established story.

In an approach to RPGing in which there is no the adventure or the module, then it doesn't matter if the map is found or not. I think there are two main sub-types of such an approach. One is Gygaxian dungeoneering - if the PCs never find the map, then they don't get whatever dungeoneering opportunity it would provide, but that doesn't stop them sacking other parts of the dungeon and earning their XP.

The other is "indie"/"story now" style - where the significance of the map being hidden isn't because it is a puzzle-solving challenge, nor because it is a clue to get from A to B, but because something in the dramatic essence of the situation or the characters calls for a hidden map. If the map is discovered (eg by a successful Scavenging or Perception check) then that particular dramatic need is satisied, and things unfold one way. If the map is not discovered (eg because a player never finds his/her PC in a fictional context that allows the framing of a check to find it; or because a check is made but fails) then that dramatic need is frustrated, and the resulting complications lead to things unfolding a different way.

 

[Sadras]

Let me put it this way. If you're playing a game, would you rather your character be dealing with something new....an unknown dungeon room, or a new part of a quest, or an interaction with a long sought NPC....or would you rather your character be walking through the cleared rooms of a dungeon waiting to roll high enough to find the secret door that leads to the rest of the adventure?

For me it will depend on the adventure.
For instance, at my table the PCs failed to solve a riddle of a planned were-terrorist attack within a city. They did not solve the cipher-poem in-time and the attacks occurred resulting in the killing of civilians, the destruction of an inn and were not able to capture/slay The Hound (the legendary mastermind leading the lycanthropes). I'm absolutely fine with that as the PCs met interesting NPCs, established a network within the city, dealt with the aftermath and obtained a few clues about the lycanthropes...etc. It also created a re-occurring villain for down the line.

I'm far less inclined to have PCs spend a session searching a manor for a map and coming out empty with nothing to show for it.

 

[pemerton]

If the tower was established in the first session, it was pre-authored.

Did you actually read the post I linked to?

I'll quote it for you, to spare you the effort:

Jobe, having both nobility and sorcerers in his circles, and a +1D affiliation with both (from Mark of Privilege and a starting affiliation with a sorcerous cabal), initially thought of trying to make contact with the Gynarch of Hardby, the sorceress ruler of that city. But then he thought he might start a little lower in the pecking order, and so decided to make contact with the red-robed firemage Jabal (of the Cabal). With Circles 2 he attempted the Ob 2 check, and failed.

So, as the 3 PCs were sitting in the Green Dragon Inn (the inn of choice for sorcerers, out-of- towners and the like), putting out feelers to Jabal, a thug wearing a rigid leather breastplate and openly carrying a scimitar turned up with a message from Jabal: Leave town, now. You're marked. Halika noticed him looking at the feather sticking out from Jobe's pouch as he said that: it seemed that the curse had already struck!

Argument ensued, but attempts to persuade, and to intimidate, both failed, and they didn't want to start a fight in the inn. Once they got outside, however, with Athog (the thug) ready to escort them to the East Gate, the elf said something to provoke him to draw his scimitar by way of threat. The player of the elf decided that this was enough provocation to justify an honourable elf striking a blow, and brought his Brawling 5 to bear on the situation. This was the first and only combat of the session, which I decided to resolve as Bloody Versus. The elf had a 1D advantage from skills, plus the same from greater Reflex, and another bonus from somewhere else that I'm forgetting, although I gave Athog +1D for sword vs fist. In any event the elf won outright, successfully evading the sword and delivering a superficial wound to Athog as he grabbed his sword hand and forced him to the ground.

Halika helped herself to Athog's purse (+1D cash, and no longer being penniless) and scimitar, and they insisted that Athog take them to Jabal.

The trip to Jabal's tower took them through the narrow, winding streets of the city. When they got there, Jabal was suitably angry at his Igor-like servitor for letting them in, and at Athog for not running them out of town. They argued, although I don't think any social skill checks were actually made. Jabal explained that the curse on the feather was real, from a mummy in a desert tomb, and that he didn't want anything to do with Jobe while he was cursed. Jobe accepted his dressing down with suitable Base Humility, earning a fate point. (The second for the session from a character trait. During the exchange in the bar Halika, who as a one-time wizard's apprentice is Always in the Way, got in the way of Jobe doing something-or-other to earn a point.)

As the PCs left Jobe's tower, they noticed a dishevelled, wild-eyed figure coming down the stairs. This caused suitable speculation about the nature of Jabal's conspiracy with the person who had sold the feather to the peddler.

The peddler, the feather, the curse, Athog, Jabal, the tower, the dishevelled figure - all were authored during the course of the session.

The peddler, the feather, the tower and the dishevelled figure were authored by me as GM - they were elements of framing.

The curse was narrated by me following a failed Aura-Reading check on the feather.

Jabal was narrated by the player in the course of making a Circles check. Athog was narrated by me as a consequence of that check failing.

Despite what you may think, it is possible to run a RPG session without all the story elements having been made up in advance.

Again, by limiting worldbuilding to stuff authored "by the GM" you're imposing an artificial limit. Worldbuilding is the creation of the setting and its purpose is the same regardless of the source: the GM, the GM and the players, the players, a campaign setting, a novelist, or a random table.

None of this is correct.

I'm not interested in arguing the meaing of words - that's a tedious pastime that I'll leave to the pedants.

I'm interested in discussing a particular pheneomnon in RPGing - namely, GM pre-authorship of setting. If you don't think "worldbuilding" is an apt label for that, fine - in your imagination substitute some other term into the title of the thread.

If you think it makes no difference to the character of RPGing how, when and by whom setting elements are authored, then I don't know what to say! You're obviously looking for a veryvery different experience in RPGing from what I am.

The existence of a tower was still you. The player wanted a home and another player had an Instinct related to falling. So you made a tower. It could have easily been a dwelling built into the side of a cliff, a house on a tree, a keep on a floating island, a hut on chicken legs, a house constructed on the ruins of an ancient bridge, or just a small manor atop a cliff.
Because of the conventions established of wizards (the trope, which is a form of existing worldbuilding) you chose a tower. You made the worldbuilding decision that mages in your setting live in mage towers and match the tropes rather than subverting them.[/QUOTE]

 

[pemerton]

For instance, at my table the PCs failed to solve a riddle of a planned were-terrorist attack within a city. They did not solve the cipher-poem in-time and the attacks occurred resulting in the killing of civilians, the destruction of an inn and were not able to capture/slay The Hound (the legendary mastermind leading the lycanthropes). I'm absolutely fine with that as the PCs met interesting NPCs, established a network within the city, dealt with the aftermath and obtained a few clues about the lycanthropes...etc. It also created a re-occurring villain for down the line.

Reading this, it seems like an example of GM-authored setting and backstory being a major driver of play, with at least some of that happening "behind the scenes".

The riddle, the terrorist attack, the lycanthropes, all seem to be story elements established by the GM.

Did the players know that a consequence of failing to solve the riddle would be the destruction of the inn etc?