What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Lanefan]

So your example features interesting points of discussion. And points to reflect on as well, which is always a good habit to be in.

This exchange:

Player: I need cash.
GM: You’ve heard that there’s a dragon in the hills who has a massive treasure hoard.

Is just the kind of thing I might say in a game. Not because I have a lot of prep done with a dragon which I want to show off, but to ask the character the question... "just how badly do you need cash?".

With the added pleasant side effect of putting the dragon-in-the-hills hook out there for later, if the player doesn't take it up right away.

And in fact your character answers exactly that question. We learn something about the character... not their skills or their stats, but something about their personality - cautious, or maybe lacking confidence. If I'm the GM, that's an interesting exchange... it makes me want to see this character in situations which put pressure on their caution or confidence.

Okay, so we get to this:


Player: ...Have we heard about any other opportubities?
GM: Make a (relevant skill) roll.

Here, were I the DM, instead of going straight to a roll I'd try to think of at least one more possible money-making option for the PC and lob it out there; maybe something like:

DM: there's also been some rumblings of late that new information has surfaced regarding the possible whereabouts of Mad Wizard Trevellian's reputedly-immense treasure hoard. Or, depending how much cash you're looking to raise, on a somewhat lesser scale there's a nice reward from the King for whoever brings the outlaw Spack Jarrow to justice; it's rumoured he's been seen in the woods not far south of town, and it's almost certain other people or groups are also looking for him. So, there's three potential money-making options you've heard of - the dragon, the wizard's hoard, and ol' Spacky-boy; and there may or may not be others."

If the player's response is to go with one of the options presented then away we go.

If the player's response is a variant of "look for more options" then it gets into some dice-rolling, as no matter what system's in use we've hit a point of uncertainty.

Does the player know why they're rolling? Do they know what number equals success? Do they know what hitting that number means for the fictional outcome? Does failure do anything interesting?

In order: yes (the roll is happening at the player's request); no (as the PC has no way of knowing whether any other options are even out there, nor should the player); yes in theory (at least one more option will come to light); and impossible to say (failure may just mean the three options are all that's out there, or it could mean complications arise from asking the wrong questions of the wrong people, or it could lead to some other mission or adventure that's not as lucrative as desired, or...too many possibilities).

Lanefan

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm going to break this up for clarity.



Agree.



I'm going to agree with this based on the fact that the player exercised his option to pursue that dramatic need using Vecna. If he didn't and the scene was framed anyways, then that would be GM force (i.e. lessening player agency)



This is not in contention by me. I never said player agency was dead (using @chaochou's own terminology).



Okay but @pemerton did feed the player a single option himself which again according to @chaochou, player agency = buried.



Yes, BUT, in @pemerton's game the player did not assert any element of fiction, only the need was expressed.



Do not agree, based on my above responses.

OK, I'm going to retreat slightly from my statement that there's NOTHING different between [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6682826]CH[/MENTION]aochau in their positions.

Pemerton doesn't have players introducing fiction de-novo. They have to play for it, whereas I believe chaochau allows for (at least in some games) players to introduce something, like the dragon example. So I BELIEVE Pemerton would always have the GM suggest the dragon in response to a player's expression of need for money, but then he might also introduce other options of various levels of risk (this was also discussed at some point and seemed quite reasonable).

Now, maybe there's daylight here too between the two of them in terms of what techniques they think are acceptable, chaochau already said that he's fine with letting the PLAYER suggest the dragon because actually engaging in the challenge is going to be handled by the GM and there's a lot of intervening steps building up to some hypothetical dragon fight (where presumably the GM can exert a lot of control over exactly what the content of that fight entails, insuring the player isn't simply authoring his own challenge). Pemerton expressed a distaste for this procedure, claiming to be 'much more conservative' IIRC. He did say he agreed though that it was an example of the general style of play, just that he wouldn't do it exactly the same way.

Are you saying GM-force 'buring' (using @chaochou's word) player agency is okay when it is interesting play for the DM (presumably)?

I'm saying Pemerton didn't agree that player agency is 'buried', and I don't think I do either. However there are details we weren't provided with in this scenario that can materially change my perceptions, potentially. For example Pemerton never stated that OTHER options weren't presented, he was entirely silent on that. Nor did he provide all significant details of the Vecna option. Was it presented as a possibility that the character had to pursue? Was it dropped on him as a take this or face the consequences (IE Vecna showed up and said "join me or perish!")? I don't know! The character might have very well had a 'third way' option (IE ignore Vecna and just go about his business and let Rel Astra take care of itself, though I think this might be seen as an abnegation of the character itself in this case). Were I that player I might well work to find some middle way, like betraying Vecna or something like that. I think these all fall under my rubrik of 'hoist himself off the horns of the dilemma' and they would all presumably entail great risks!

Anyway, I think this sort of thing is the ESSENCE of great play! As a player how much more delicious can it be then to portray the actions of my character in a profound situation of moral danger! Nothing can allow strong characterization as well as this! Others talk about exploring the fantasy world, but this is a whole dimension of it, the personalities of its inhabitants, particularly of the PC I'm playing.

But have we not been using this find-the-map-in-the-study example (in isolation) to show how its not hard to hammer home how the some group of DMs supposedly limit player agency. I'm saying the framing is broken up between many rooms and that player agency still exists. Now I'm being told this example in isolation is too hard to judge a specific situation.

I'm pretty sure @Ovinomancer was stating something similar with his 'smaller moves' example further back in the thread.

Taken on its face, the example of 'the map cannot be found in the study because its hidden in some other non-obvious place.' doesn't leap out as being an example of player agency. The GM is simply describing some element of the setting established unilaterally. That MIGHT NOT be an issue, but in the cases where it isn't, at least in my own play, the game wouldn't present the check as 'look in the study for the map'. Lets say there's time pressure, then a check in an SC dealing with resolving the conflict might be something like "Make a check to see if you can quickly find the map in the <NPC>'s abode." A failure wastes time and might be narrated as "you failed to look in the kitchen!" (if the map is a blocker and thus is found regardless) or "you find no map!" otherwise.

So, given my style of play, as presented the map scenario doesn't contain any player agency. In fact in my own game system it could only exist in that form as an 'interlude' a segment of descriptive play in which nothing is being staked (but which might act as a transition and scene setting device for later challenges). Thus not finding the map is perfectly OK, but no check would ever be made. The map simply isn't important and agency isn't addressed by it.

 

[chaochou]

OK, I'm going to retreat slightly from my statement that there's NOTHING different between pemerton and Chaochou in their positions.

Pemerton doesn't have players introducing fiction de-novo. They have to play for it, whereas I believe chaochau allows for (at least in some games) players to introduce something, like the dragon example. So I BELIEVE Pemerton would always have the GM suggest the dragon in response to a player's expression of need for money, but then he might also introduce other options of various levels of risk (this was also discussed at some point and seemed quite reasonable).

Now, maybe there's daylight here too between the two of them in terms of what techniques they think are acceptable...

Yes, I think this is fair. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and I have discussed this, and our goals tend to converge although we use our own sets of techniques to get there. I don't think Pemerton would mind if I said his style was more traditional than mine. I know my style isn't the most hippy freeform going, but my games are quite improvisational, GM-reactive, and challenging for my players.

I run games which demand a high degree of player input, with a lot of leading questions, a lot of pressure. I don't think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] drives his players quite as hard! However, fundamentally we both value player-agency over GM scripting as the driving force in our games.

 

[Imaro]

I guess I don't see what is remarkable about such a situation. The character lacks fictional positioning to successfully engage in combat. That is an imposition on available options, but every wall, every tree, every anything in the game imposes those! So I don't think the argument that "only a game with no defined parameters at all grants player's agency" is cogent, and thus there should be no point to be made here.

Go back to the original post. Two situations were compared and I asked the difference (if there was one) between the two... there was no point being made only a question being asked...

 

[hawkeyefan]

I guess I'm wondering what you have in mind.

For instance, are you thinking of something like this (say as an extreme case): You wake up bound and gagged, paralysed by nerve toxin and unable to move or even blink your eyes?

Well, I'm trying to figure out what you have in mind. Do you mean something like the above?

Or do you have in mind examples like the peddler with the angel feather? Or Vecna making an offer the PC can hardly refuse . . .?

The reason I am asking is because the (conjectured) burden on agency would come from quite different places. In the first example, it's just the fictional positioning - it's not clear what actions are actual able to be declared.

In the second example, and going on what you and some others have posted upthread, the (conjectured) burden on agency would come from the fact that the situation puts pressure on the player to think about how to pursue PC goals, how to trade off, etc.

I’m just asking if it’s possible for framing to limit player agency. I didn’t want to give a specific example because I was speaking generally. Is it possible? If you’d like, we can use the example you gave of framing a scene where the PCs have been captured. The 5E adventure Out of the Abyss is a recent example of this.

Now, I want to make it clear that I have no real problem with this kind of start. I think it’s a perfectly valid approach to a game.

But I would have to describe this framing as being pretty GM driven. It certainly puts pressure on the players to do things...but it also forces the story down a certain path, at least for a bit.

Would you agree?

I’m sure that ideally the GM would have the captors be antagonists that at least one player has indicated would be interesting and incorporated them into his character’s goals, and so on. But what if that’s not the case?

Both Fate and Burning Wheel have discussions on "spotlight" ie the exepctations on players when another player's issues are more to the fore in play.

Burning Wheel also has advice for players which I agree with: the player has an obligation to play his/her PC so that his/her stuff comes out in play.

And as a GM, I try to draw connections between different PCs' stuff. So eg in my Traveller game, the same planet that is the source of bioweapons material is also the place where there are signs of alien life.

About the second item quoted above...how can players do that? Or how can they do that at all times? Surely if Tim’s warlock has the spotlight and the story has become about a struggle between Tim’s patron and another entity, how can Bob the fighter seek revenge for the death if his brother? Wouldn’t Bob’s attempts to bring that up distract from Tim’s story? Are they supposed to take turns?

Or perhaps as you indicate in the third item, perhaps Bob’s brother was killed by followers of the rival of Tim’s patron. Nice and convenoent....I do tend to try to do this where I see such connections. But...isn’t that potentially an example of GM force? Let me take these two stories and make them one. Or, if it’s not, isn’t such an approach prone to overuse? Won’t the players start to expect all their problems to dovetail into one another? If so, must that be bad?

These questions are all the kinds I think about for my game. And ultimately, I’m not afraid of the story being GM driven from time to time because I know my players really well and what they are interested in seeing come up in the game. I add some other elements beyond those things because I think that helps balance things out and keeps things from being predoctable.

But honestly, I’m not seeing how my use of “worldbuilding” or backstory is doing what you claim it does.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, this. There's a huge gulf, and tremendously rich gameplay between knowing a solution and making it happen, such that it offers the players a lot of agency and buy-in with very little overhead. The only real requirement is for the GM to let go of 'their precious', relax and participate in the discovery of the world.

I would have thought that the principle applied in this way because as you said, a case of the player actually adding the realized solution into the game never happens.

I can see how it’s something to be cautious about, but generally when my players come up with a solution to a problem their characters are facing and I hadn’t even thought of it, I get psyched.

Ha! I may often be grumpy and abrasive, but I really prefer not to classify specific instances of other people's play

So your example features interesting points of discussion. And points to reflect on as well, which is always a good habit to be in.

This exchange:

Player: I need cash.
GM: You’ve heard that there’s a dragon in the hills who has a massive treasure hoard.

Is just the kind of thing I might say in a game. Not because I have a lot of prep done with a dragon which I want to show off, but to ask the character the question... "just how badly do you need cash?".

And in fact your character answers exactly that question. We learn something about the character... not their skills or their stats, but something about their personality - cautious, or maybe lacking confidence. If I'm the GM, that's an interesting exchange... it makes me want to see this character in situations which put pressure on their caution or confidence.

Okay, so we get to this:


Player: ...Have we heard about any other opportubities?
GM: Make a (relevant skill) roll.
Player: Okay....(rolls)
GM (checks results):

Does the player know why they're rolling? Do they know what number equals success? Do they know what hitting that number means for the fictional outcome? Does failure do anything interesting?

My instinct from your example is the answers are: not precisely, no, no, no. Of course, that may be a doing it an injustice. But that kind of action resolution exchange sends up a lot of smoke signals of GM control and player passivity.

Then the list of 'jobs' looks a bit generic and scripted. I'd be looking for the player to be generating a lead that interested them and then engaging the mechanics to see how much of what they want actually happens.

So, instead, what would you make of this?

Player: Have we heard of any other opportunities?
GM: Who are you asking?
Player: Well, I know this vagabond Harskold who kicks round the streets. He usually knows plenty.
GM: True enough, he does. Not the most reputable sort, though. Sometimes keeps the wrong company.
Player: Yeah. Well maybe that's the sort of work I'm looking for. I'll go look for him.
GM: Okay, Streetwise 16+. If you make it you find him somewhere quiet and comfortable. If you fail - he's going to be somewhere compromised or uncomfortable. You still want to roll?

I would say the player has created a new character in the streets, the GM used a 'Yes.. and...' to flesh out that character with a bit of an edge which let the player know what sort of work they're likely to get. And then the stakes of the roll have been set - not absolutely nailed down, but enough to work with so that we know we're going to get a new situation from the roll; either negotiation over work, or maybe Harskold in the stocks or a gibbet, or a cell and we each get some new ideas for conflict, risk and reward.

Well, for the mechanics I didn’t go into specifics because I didn’t want to assume a specific game...a Streetwise check, Contacts roll, Diplomacy, Gather Information....whatever would be relevant. I personally would share the kind of check. Perhaps not the target number because I like to use degrees of success on those kinds of actions; I offered two alternate rumors assuming a decent result. But just as easily I could see a lower result only offering equally difficult options (“other than the dragon, you hear about a beholder nearby” or something similar).

My example was simply sketched, but yes in actual games may be more in line with your more detailed example. I don’t mind if my players come up with the contact in question...don’t really see the difference so may as well use theirs. And then I try to keep those kinds of characters around.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If the GM only allows for certain scenes and/or outcomes REGARDLESS OF THE EXPRESSED DESIRE OF THE PLAYERS then its GM force. If all the players agree to address certain elements jointly, then no, its player agency. If some players get their way and others don't, then some mix of things is going on, but we can classify this as problematic and hope to improve on it.

The key point is it isn't 'GM force' when the GM frames a scene which is responsive to the players. It is just the GM doing 'GM stuff'.

Okay, fair enough.

For me, when all the problems start to conveniemtly commect to one another, that seems a bit forced. I get it that the players may all be cool with it (and ultimately i would say that’s all that matters), but what if one player is uninterested in the elements of another player character’s story?

Examining only the ideal seems wrong. So what happens when things get problematic in that way? Tim the warlock wants to deal with his patron’s goals and desires, but he doesn’t care about Bob wanting to (yaaaawn) hunt down the drow that murdered his brother.

This kind of situation could easily come up in my game, which I would not categorize as player driven (not solely, anyway), so I don’t think it’s specific to such games, but seems like it would be more likely to come up in such games.

Has that kind of thing come up? How did/would you handle it?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Okay, fair enough.

For me, when all the problems start to conveniemtly commect to one another, that seems a bit forced. I get it that the players may all be cool with it (and ultimately i would say that’s all that matters), but what if one player is uninterested in the elements of another player character’s story?

Examining only the ideal seems wrong. So what happens when things get problematic in that way? Tim the warlock wants to deal with his patron’s goals and desires, but he doesn’t care about Bob wanting to (yaaaawn) hunt down the drow that murdered his brother.

This kind of situation could easily come up in my game, which I would not categorize as player driven (not solely, anyway), so I don’t think it’s specific to such games, but seems like it would be more likely to come up in such games.

Has that kind of thing come up? How did/would you handle it?

I think you basically suggested one solution up thread, let the goals of the two PCs come into consonance with each other, so they can pursue them through a single narrative. Is it 'contrived'? Mmmm, moreso than characters who have murdered relatives they want to avenge (and actually WILL try to avenge)? I mean I can't judge the frequency of warlocks getting tangled up in their patron's goals, that's something that we can only invent in our minds. I DO think I can reason about people running off to get revenge. It almost never happens in the real world. Of the several people I've ever encountered who might theoretically have reasons to seek revenge on someone, none of them was willing to do so, nor desired to do so. Thus I have to conclude that 'Bob' is a VERY VERY unusual person to start with! So, how much more of a stretch is it that his brother was killed by someone that Tim's patron is tangled up with? I don't feel like I need to be too worried about this!

Beyond that, this is not some world, this is a game of heroic adventure. This sort of thing just happens in heroic adventures. Fate is not just random chance, heroes arise under special circumstances and have unusual luck and special fates. These guys are potentially legends. It happens that Bob stumbles upon Tim and it turns out their fates are intertwined? This isn't 'stretching' anything, its how the heroic Universe works!

 

[Lanefan]

Beyond that, this is not some world, this is a game of heroic adventure.

Please keep in mind that this statement is not true in all cases. Not everyone plays D&D - or any other RPG - as a game of heroic adventure all the time, if ever at all.

Which means any analysis based on this assumption runs the risk of quickly becoming at best only applicable to some games and at worst somewhat irrelevant.

 

[pemerton]

EDIT (and call out to [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]) - this post is best read together with the one just subsequent to it, which tries to catch up on some more of the thread action over the course of the (Australian) day.

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] - re actual and hypothetical play examples.

[MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] gave two hypothetical examples:

(1) GM establishes dramatic need, GM provides solution.

(2) Player establishes dramatic need, player provides (ultimate) solution.

I've already posted multiple times in this thread that I am more conservative than chaochou on the boundary between GM and player content introduction. So it's proabably not surprising that my actual play example falls somewhere between (1) and (2)!

The player builds and plays a PC who (i) seeks world domination, (ii) is a wizard who is part of an ancient group of wizards with connections to the now-long-lost Suel Empire, and (iii) isn't afraid to traffic in dark arts.

I offer up a pathway to the possibility of world domination in the form of Vecna, a wizard of the same order who has returned to life out of the long-lost Suel Empire, and is certainly not shy of using a dark art or two.

It is the player who actually chooses to approach Vecna and make an alliance. That is already a significant choice (given that the other PCs, and the generic gameworld NPCs, regard Vecna as a villain and a threat). My main contribution at that point is to connect the alliance to a need to betray the character's home town.

Upthread I've posted more than once that one important form of player agency over the fiction is to contribute material other than by way of succesful action resolution, I would regard this as a case in point. Vecna is my "repackaging" of the player's material into a form that permits and eventually that calls for significant choices to be made, that will tell us something about the PC as a character. I don't think that player agency is buried,

As far as the map is concerned, every hypothetical example has its limits, and rests on some unstated assumptions. I've been assuming at least (i) tbat the map's existence in the fiction is already established, (ii) that (somehow or other, in the course of play) acquiring the map has become important to the PCs (and their players), and (iii) that it is salient that the map might be in the study (ie this is not like Boromir searching Rivendell for Sauron).

In the footprint example, I'm taking it that the goal is to find the villain, and that answering "no" to the inquiry "Are there footprints" is part of establishing the framing. The analogue in the map example would be "We're in the library, looking for the map - is there a catalogue?" If the GM answers "yes", that's an invitation to (say) a Research check; if the GM answers "no" then we're back to Perception (or whatever) to try and find the map in the library.

To see the hunt for the map in the study itself in the same sort of way, it would have to be something like this: the players have as their goal the location of the map, the PCs find themselves in a study (as narrated by the GM in the course of framing), the players say, "Hey, maybe the map's in this study!" and the GM replies "No, the study's not the big deal here, there's no map, let's move on to . . . <whatever comes next that is the big deal>."

When is it good rather than bad GMing to answer "no" and shut down some avenue of inquiry (footprints, catalogues, looking for the map in a not-a-big-deal study, etc)? I would say that's highly contextual, but in my own case generally I'm trying to (i) avoid play drifting into areas where I have nothing useful to offer as a GM (thus, everything else being equal, I tend to avoid encouraging long wilderness journeys), and/or (ii) the avoided avenue does not speak to any establsihed or evinced player concern. If one of the PCs is a devotee of Ioun, or is an expert tracker, or really is treating the studyu as a big deal, then saying "no catalogue" or "no footprints" or "no map" looks like bad GMing to me.