What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Lanefan]

IMO a PC who's a special snowflake in one game might be a good fit for a different game table with different standards. In a game where PCs are expected to have backstories and personal goals a rootless orphan with no background could be the special snowflake, it all depends on expectations.

A game with plot protection for PCs needs other stakes rather than mere PC survival to play for. A lot of game tables don't feature casual PC death any more, but feature plenty of meaningful success and failure nethertheless. PCs may be more complex starting off, have significant backstories or game goals they expect to be relevant to play.

I call that a system fault - a bug, not a feature. Fortunately, I've enough knowledge to handle the debugging required.

There are legitimate reasons for plot protection, such as games for children, and groups that specifically ask for such game. If I run games for children I apply content filters as appropriate, simplify the game rules, and run short sessions.

I don't DM for children and don't want children in games I play in. When they're old enough to handle the content and to have attention spans longer than that of the average chicken, then fine; but that stage doesn't usually hit until the early-to-mid teens.

Running for teens I would have laxer content filters and expect to spend more time keeping order.

I'd have pretty much the same content filters I have for adults (i.e. not much filtering!) and only worry about keeping order when (not if) the in-character conflicts spilled over into player-at-the-table conflicts.

And though it may sound harsh I expect people to leave their personal problems at the door. Failing that they can choose to skip a session or two or play as usual and deal with whatever comes along, just like any other session. (and I've had players tell me in the past that having the game just keep going as usual has provided a nice break from whatever else is going on)

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, and I have said the same thing a few times here too. So I think we agree that the messaging was a little confusing, but just reading the 'wrapper on the tin' you would certainly expect a game of heroes and heroic adventure.

Perhaps.

Keep in mind, however, that we weren't just reading the PH and DMG back in the day. Every month another Dragon magazine would come out, and it didn't take much reading of those to realize just how flexible the game could be to suit different styles.

I was just going by what the game presents. Your fighter is a 'hero' at level 4, the illusionist a 'Master Trickster', the thief is a 'Robber' and the cleric a 'Curate' (these are 1e level titles, but I think the earlier ones are about the same). Now, maybe I came to D&D by a different route than later folks, but TO ME the portrayal of NPCs with levels was a simple convenient convention. It stems from Chainmail where normal figures are basically equated to levels 1-3 (10 characters to a figure). That makes a level 1 fighter the equivalent of 10 veteran soldiers (though when you do that fight in D&D itself using the d20 combat system it obviously doesn't quite work out that way).

In 4e this might be true but in 1e the 10 soldiers would, while likely sustaining a few casualties, take down the 1st-level guy - every - single - time.

The point is making the town guards 'level 2 fighting men' is just a way to create an elite warrior with 2 hit dice, it doesn't imply that they are heroic figures who advance in level. In fact 1e explicitly states that such people are not in fact eligible to advance, not being heroic material.

Which struck me as an astonishingly dumb rule probably the first time I read it. The way I see it, anyone can advance in level if they've got the skills and willingness to do so, and some are going to advance no matter what just as a feature of what they do for a living. Soldiers who see actual battle are an obvious example.

And, as the game kinda requires it once you look carefully at how things work e.g. training rules etc., I also have it that people like stay-at-home temple clerics, street thieves, lab research mages, and so forth can and will also advance in levels as they go along, although much more slowly than a typical adventurer does...maybe a level every few years at best, with some vague upper limits set by their stats.

Yes, there must, of necessity, be an endless supply of heroes for D&D's meat grinder, and so for henchmen as well (though its VERY hard to get many in any one place, you have to move around a LOT by the DMG). I would argue this has more to do with the incoherence of D&D (heroic concept, meat grinder low level cannon fodder implementation) than it does with what is stated as the intent.

I mean, I don't think you're wrong about what game Gygax was actually designing, just that people certainly don't EXPECT it to be that game when they read it!

I never expected it to be all that heroic when I first read it.

Now, see I see it the opposite way. I'm an average guy in real life, in my gaming time, I want to be special. Sure, I want to make up and play out what really makes me special, but I never want to be a feckin level 1 AD&D character again as long as I live, BORING!

The game I'm playing in right now has an average PC level around 10th, which is at the extreme high end (i.e. record high) for our crew. I'm quite looking forward to dropping back to 1st someday and starting over; though as this game still looks to have a few years worth of legs to it I might have to wait a while.

Hell, even as a 1st level 1e character - no matter what class - I'm doing things I can't do in reality.

Lanefan

 

[Maxperson]

What 'causation', can you (or me or anyone) describe why magical fire is affected by being underwater? Fires don't burn underwater because water denies them oxygen, but magical fire doesn't (perhaps, nobody knows) use oxygen. If it does, then would a fireball work in an atmosphere lacking oxygen? Would it work in a vacuum? I mean, really, there's some consistency here?

No, there's no 'causality' involved, there's a TROPE. I'm not saying the trope doesn't loosely originate in the observation that water puts out fires (note that even in the real world there are things which burn underwater). Its just a convention.

And here's my issue with relying on these conventions as the basis of how you STEER the narrative; how does anyone really know what they are? I mean, some of them are pretty basic, like gravity, or that people need air, etc. Even so these can cause problems sometimes because we have different understandings of HOW they work, and why. When it comes to magic fire underwater all bets are off. All the player can do is either ask, or hope it works how they need it to work.

Now, if you steer the narrative on the basis of dramatic need and player agenda, you don't have this problem. Yes, you still deal with fictional positioning to some extent, but now you have a strong guide as to how it should work, which is basically the 'rule of cool' (which 4e explicitly states, an interesting observation as it turns out). If something furthers the goals of the game, then make it work that way (notwithstanding some reasonable degree of consistency, which is itself just an aid to figuring out what fictional positioning is going to be needed).

That's my take on it anyway

There are different definitions of causality. It seems that you and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] are focusing on the one that says every effect has a cause. [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] seems to be focusing the one that says that it's the relationship between cause and effect. For the second definition, there is causation in D&D fiction that drives the rules. A wizard casts fireball(fictional cause) and a fireball appears doing fire damage(rules effect). A rogue attempts use a wand of fireballs in the fiction(cause) and if the use magic device is successful(rules effect) a fireball appears doing fire damage(rules effect). That's causation. There is a direct relationship between cause and effect.

Also, just because as you point out above we can't describe why magic fire is affected by being underwater, doesn't mean that there is no causation involved. Here in the real world there isn't a single person on Earth who can tell us why everything happens the way it does. We have to guess at things, too. That doesn't mean that there is no causation going on, but only that we don't understand it yet. The game rules cannot be as detailed about the game fiction as what we know here on Earth, so there is more of causation that DMs and players have to guess at, but that doesn't mean that causation doesn't exist in D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

The game I'm playing in right now has an average PC level around 10th, which is at the extreme high end (i.e. record high) for our crew. I'm quite looking forward to dropping back to 1st someday and starting over; though as this game still looks to have a few years worth of legs to it I might have to wait a while.

Hell, even as a 1st level 1e character - no matter what class - I'm doing things I can't do in reality.

Lanefan

On this I have to agree with [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]. I found the first few levels of AD&D(1e and 2e) and even 3e to be be boring. I much prefer to start at level 3 and go from there.

 

[TwoSix]

Pretty soon, as they commenced wandering the dungeon looking for a way out, I framed a scene in which they found themselves in a large chamber with Sigils on the wall (a scene distinction). One of the players - the same one who plays the invoker/wizard - declared an action to eliminate his Lost in the Dungeon complication, resting on the premise that the Sigils were actually a map/description of the dungeon. His check succeeded, and so indeed the PC was able to decipher the sigils, and work out where he was in the dungeon, and hence ceased to be lost.

If you ever need an example to illustrate the difference between Gygaxian play and narrative play, here it is. I'm trying to imagine the expression on [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] 's face if a player suggested this in his game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, the GM's primary role is not putting forward an agenda, but obviously the framing function leaves a huge amount of room for GM agendas to appear. Chances are the GM established the general parameters of the setting and agreed to the genre/tone of the game as well, just like the players.

Sure, this is very likely the case. But then this is more about the GM using the game mechanics responsibly, so to speak. Ideally, he won’t be pushing an agenda. But it certainly seems possible, no?

This goes back to it being more a case of GM performance. Separate of the rules or mechanics or even the chosen style, the GM can perform well or poorly.

Pemerton’s premise and much of the discussion presumes that the GM in examples of his chosen style will perform per the ideal, and that GMs in examples of a more GM driven style will of course perform poorly.

Now, we can discuss how a player driven style leaves less room for the GM to fully take hold and drive the game as the sole creative force...that’s fine. I can see how sone of the mechhanics of such games make that less likely.

But by the same token, a GM driven game need not be a case of the GM thwarting player creativity. I feel my style as described seems very much in line with the folks in the thread who are arguing in favor of player driven play. Yet my game contains “worldbuilding” in the sense that I do have GM authored elements that I introduce into play.

However, the elements I introduce do not rob my players of agency.

Ultimately, I feel he’s eatablished a false dichotomy based on trends. They are not the absolutes he portrays.

As for the players, they brought the ingredients, so the flavor of the stew should come as little surprise to them in some general sense. That being said, there are likely to be many twists. I would say that an ingenious GM is likely to introduce those at times. Maybe the Drow offer Mary the McGuffin in return for killing Bob? I don't know, I don't have a creative stroke of genius to apply to that right now. Obviously, setting the PCs directly against each other is tricky business, but its always possible to create SOME tension there. Less central issues could be in play, maybe some NPC that could help with Tim or Mary's agendas is Bob's bad guy. They can debate ways to deal with that, or Bob can be a dork and take unilateral action (but remember, that doesn't imply a rift between the PLAYERS).

Sure, a clever GM can surprise players even when they know ahead of time the kinds of things that will come up in play. I wouldn’t argue otherwise.

But I don’t think that the GM adding something entirely mew and separate of what the players have pre-established as desires for play must be bad. In fact, I think such things can add quite a bit to a game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The number two, being an abstract object, has no causal effect on anything. Yet the number 2 is a limit that will be approached by y = ((x^2)/x) +2, as x approaches zero.

You switched from 'fictional' to 'abstract'. That's a pretty big switch, as 'abstract' includes thoughts and emotions which have clear causal properties (they are caused and they do cause). The number 2 is an abstract object, and, in some ways, a fictional one, but, as an engineer, I can use the number 2 to cause many things to happen. There isn't a physical representation of the number 2 that does this, but my concept and ideas about the number 2 cause me to take physical action that cause things. The number two is in the causal chain a number of my daily actions, as a matter of fact.

So, this concept, while possibly a fun diversion into the reality of numbers, actually cuts against your arguments.

The time my super-mathematician spent yesterday squaring the circle, being an impossible event, has no causal effect on anything. But a consistent story about my super-mathematician would have to allow that while that series of geometric figures was being drawn, my super-mathematician cannot also have been designing yet another perpetual motion machine. Only one set of plans can be drawn at a time.

Lesson? Consistency is a logical and/or conceptual relation between abstract objects, not a causal relation between physical objects.

So, your ideas (abstract objects) about consistency (another abstract object) cause you to alter how you author fiction? See why broaching into abstract as a general category doesn't support your argument?

If, instead, we remove and replace abstract with fictional and ignore your numbers argument, then you're still saying that you're using a fictional construct of time in fiction to dictate how you author the fiction. Here's a test: provide your example again without ever referring to any fiction whatsoever and see if you can actually construct an example that isn't a wordier version of "I authored some fiction." This goes back to my argument that the fiction has to exist because it's used to construct new fiction and engage game mechanics. If the fiction doesn't exist, then there's nothing there to engage.

 

[Ovinomancer]

OK, here's my attempt at a cogent response.

First I would note that D&D (as an example) never calls out what the fiction proscribes, or what it prescribes, except specifically where it intersects a mechanic (I will use 1e as my example if it matters since I'm most familiar with it). So, for example the rules state that every 10' a character falls deals 1d6 damage. Likewise when your hit points reach 0, you die (or at least go unconscious, rules are flexible!). I'd note that SOMETIMES, always in the DMG in a place separate from the rule itself, Gygax tries to describe what, fictionally, would best be represented by certain game constructs. So he talks about what sort of walls a thief could climb, and even suggests rules adjustments for them.

Now, you might take all this to indicate 'rules describe how the world behaves', but note that these descriptions are ONLY in terms of how things affect characters, their possessions, and other elements that are part of the direct fiction. The only time this gets blurry is for high level PCs who have class features which are narrative in nature (IE strongholds, where he talks about taxation systems and such, but they are only rules BECAUSE they intersect with character class features). In other places things are specifically called out as 'guidelines' or recommendations, or just procedures which can be used in the course of play, like random generators.

So, I maintain that the rules of the game are about the GAME, and not about regulating the fiction. This is underlined by the way 1e, again and again, calls them all 'guidelines' and specifically instructs the DM to use any means he finds suitable to adjudicate the game.

In terms of the narrative 'being' rules... I don't think it is. I think the narrative is intended to be coherent. You are supposed to be able to hear it, or read it, or experience it as a player, and be able to construct a mental image of the action, much like you would construct a mental image of Moria when you read the chapter of Fellowship of the Ring where they enter Kazhad Dum etc.

The players, presumably in some sort of consensus, are free to decide HOW, or even IF the narrative, the fictional positioning, binds them. This isn't a matter of rules, specifically. There's no rule in D&D that gravity exists. There's a convention, and a falling damage rule accompanies that convention, but there's no rule! In fact, if the players are in the Ethereal Plane, then falling doesn't happen at all. Presumably they're free to make up other such locales, and a whole game could hypothetically take place in such a locale.

So, I think there are CONVENTIONS, what we often call 'genre assumptions' or 'tropes', and even just 'common sense assumptions' (IE gravity) which we assume and use because they are convenient, yet they only take on binding force by consensus in play. A game designer is free to establish some of these are rules, thus staking his game's claim to a certain territory, but it would be impossible for games to actually try to spell them all out. MOST of what we play is what we decide to play, not what is in the book. 'Causality' is simply a convention we may use, or even more likely, just a lampshade we hang on certain plot devices.

I think the impact here is that you're arguing that since the conventions do not have binding force outside of what we give them, that they cannot therefor ever be causes of new fiction. I find that argument unpersuasive. That a thing can have a property in some cases doesn't mean it never has that property. Hair, for instance, can be red, but I cannot make the claim that since it can be red in some cases it's red in all cases. This is similar to fictional causation on new fiction in that it's trivial to provide an example where there is no fictional causation on new fiction but this doesn't mean fiction cannot ever have causal effects on new fiction. In fact, your examples are all of cases where fiction does have causal impacts. "In the fiction this character is authored to be have fallen 50'" causes, in reality and based on conventions, the DM to pick up 5d6 and roll them and use that outcome to narrate new fiction of "and takes 18 damage" which can then cause new fiction to be authored of "and kills the character." There's a causal chain there, and yes, that causal chain exists because we agree it exists and we can change our minds, but that doesn't affect the fact that this causal chain occurred. And that fictional narration can have many real world events that are caused by it: the player of that character may now pick up pencil and paper and dice and books and undergo a process involving a bunch of interactions to create a new fictional character.

In fact, that's an excellent example: if the fiction is authored that a character dies, real world consequences follow. And you can't separate the specific fiction authored from the act of authoring because it doesn't follow that authoring fiction causes real world consequences. If I author some random bit of fiction, the consequences aren't predictable as if I author a character death. The fiction matters, it exists, and we rely on both of these to continue to play the game.

We don't tell people we're trying to encourage to play with us tales that go "we have a bunch of fun! Bob narrates some stuff, then John narrates some stuff, then Fred narrates some stuff, and then Bob narrates some more! It's a blast!" Instead, we tell the fiction we came up with together, and that fiction has a lot of 'and then's and 'because of that's because stories only work if they have at least a passing acquaintance with reality. "Bob said there's a teapot full of dragons and then John said it's a teapot full of unicorns and then Fred said it's a housecoat full of unicorns and then Bob said there's no housecoat at all! Totally awesome game!" makes no sense and we don't play for this outcome. We instead agree to hold the fiction as causal, and, because of that agreement, the fiction is causal and we take concrete and fictional actions because of what's already happened in the fiction.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There are different definitions of causality. It seems that you and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] are focusing on the one that says every effect has a cause. [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] seems to be focusing the one that says that it's the relationship between cause and effect. For the second definition, there is causation in D&D fiction that drives the rules. A wizard casts fireball(fictional cause) and a fireball appears doing fire damage(rules effect). A rogue attempts use a wand of fireballs in the fiction(cause) and if the use magic device is successful(rules effect) a fireball appears doing fire damage(rules effect). That's causation. There is a direct relationship between cause and effect.

Also, just because as you point out above we can't describe why magic fire is affected by being underwater, doesn't mean that there is no causation involved. Here in the real world there isn't a single person on Earth who can tell us why everything happens the way it does. We have to guess at things, too. That doesn't mean that there is no causation going on, but only that we don't understand it yet. The game rules cannot be as detailed about the game fiction as what we know here on Earth, so there is more of causation that DMs and players have to guess at, but that doesn't mean that causation doesn't exist in D&D.

Nope. Not my arguments at all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you ever need an example to illustrate the difference between Gygaxian play and narrative play, here it is. I'm trying to imagine the expression on [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] 's face if a player suggested this in his game.

It would probably be similar to the expression on Pemerton's face if someone tried to swap places with their king and rook in his game.

You know....since that's a move for another game entirely.