What is *worldbuilding* for?

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I don't find this to be a cogent line of reasoning. Gravity isn't a convention in the real world. It happens. We describe it as a 'law of nature'. Take 100' fall onto a concrete surface, there's nothing like "just because I got 42 fractures last time doesn't mean it will hurt this time." People get locked up for their own good when they reason like this. So clearly there is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT about the causality that exists in the real world vs whatever you are talking about, which is simply "some people agreed to pretend to believe that their characters fell 100' and took 10d6 damage." I'm arguing that PHYSICALLY THE FICTIONS ARE NOT the cause of other fictions, period, full stop. Its absolute. We aren't arguing about an opinion or something here, this is just reality talking. You can make up a story under which fiction A FICTIONALLY caused fiction B, and that's fine, I am totally all for you doing that, but when you say that one fiction actually caused another, you have left the reservation. The two things are qualitatively different and should not be named using the same name.

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.

Again, this is apples vs oranges. Causation isn't a convention, not in the real world, its an absolute objective property of the Universe we inhabit (@Pemerton, and all other philosophers in this thread, NOT A PEEP!!!!).

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.

Huh? Fiction is fiction! Experiencing fiction can of course have, WILL have I should say, some sort of real-world consequences, but the fictional narrative and its fictional causality is only very tangentially related to any ACTUAL causality in the real world.

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.

I don't entirely agree even with the aesthetic element of this argument. I think there are plenty of times when we agree (often, maybe even typically in a silent understood fashion) to just 'let it go' and make a narrative that has some aesthetically pleasing character to it (a moral tale, or just a pleasing story of revenge, survival, whatever) and not even worry about some critical thing would make the narrative utterly unbelievable if you attempted to pass it off as a description of events in the real world. I don't mean some spell or monster, I mean just basic stuff we know about how the world works. I don't even think D&D worlds FAINTLY RESEMBLE something that anyone would agree, on careful observation, can exist. The ecology is crazy, the economics are crazy, the politics are crazy, everything is crazy and pretty much exists to service telling a certain kind of story. Creating a certain narrative logic, rising and falling tension, etc. Those are the things that matter, not pretend causality that we mostly turn a blind eye to anyway except when people mysteriously get hung up on one tiny detail even though the whole forest is really paper mache.

 

[pemerton]

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.

In the real world there exist real things that are really connected by real causal processes.

This morning in my bathroom something was making a dripping noise. Based on visual inspection I don't think it was a tap, so I infer that there must have been some water that had got "stuck" in some place (a soap holder; a plug hole) and was dripping out of there, making the noise. Clearly there was some process going on, although I don't know exactly what it was.

But a fiction doesn't have an existence independent of whatever is authored in respect of it. If I read a story, and a drip is mentioned, but the author doesn't tell me where the drip came from, there is no independent and objective truth of the matter.

In the real world, if I see a throng of people on the street then there is a true proposition that states the number of people in the throng. This is so whether or not I personally work out what that number is. But if a GM tells the players "You see a crowd outside the palace," there is no true proposition about the number of people in that crowd. Because the crowd has no objective existence. It's just something that someone made up! Likewise, there is no answer to the question "How long is the spout of the teapot in [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s front garden that had a dragon living in it?"

One obvious consequence of this is that the players and GM can't guess at causation in the imaginary world of D&D. Any more than I can guess how many threads of cotton there are in Sherlock Holmes' shirt. I can ask the author. I can make up my own fanfic. But there's nothing for me to guess about!

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.

The rules effect is not caused by an imaginary wizard casting an imaginary spell. It is caused by a real person - the player of said wizard (or the GM if its a NPC) making an action declaration "I cast Fireball!"


EDIT: I just saw that [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] posted much the same not far upthread. I agree with what he said.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I have not made any such presumption.

It's inherent to a GM-driven style of game that the GM drive. Hence, the players have less agency over the content of the shared fiction. This is evidenced by the fact that action declarations may fail not in virtue of the resolution mechanics, but because the GM has already established some unrevealed backstory in virtue of which the action can't succeed. It is further evidence by the fact that the GM will not be drawing the material for framing and consequence narration from stuff provided by the players themselves in the build and play of their PCs.

That's what a GM-driven style means! Of course if the GM-driven game is less GM-driven (eg the GM draws material from stuff provided by the players; the GM does not rely on unrevealed backstory for adjudication; etc) then the game will have more player agency, but precisely because it is less GM-driven!

 

[pemerton]

when you say that one fiction actually caused another, you have left the reservation.

This, 100%!

Causation isn't a convention, not in the real world, its an absolute objective property of the Universe we inhabit (@Pemerton, and all other philosophers in this thread, NOT A PEEP!!!!).

Well, it should be pretty clear from my posts that I think causal processes are real things. But I'll save it for another time to tell you how I think this can be reconciled with Hume . . .

 

[pemerton]

You switched from 'fictional' to 'abstract'. That's a pretty big switch, as 'abstract' includes thoughts and emotions which have clear causal properties

Thoughts aren't abstract objects. They are concrete - located in time and space.

(Well, "thought" is ambiguous. Sometimes it is used to mean "meaning" or "proposition" or "content" - that's abstract. But the state of your brain that constitutes the fact that you're thinking whatever you're thinking right now - that's a concrete physical process in your brain.)

Likewise emotions.

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.

No. You can use your brain to make things happen. You can use two (hammers, cables, kilograms of concrete, etc) to make things happen. The number 2 itself does not do anything, because it does not participate in causal processes, because (for starters) it's not located in time or space.

my concept and ideas about the number 2 cause me to take physical action that cause things.

Correct. But your concept of the number 2 is not the same thing as the number 2. The general point is that an idea of something isn't the same thing as the thing itself. I have an idea of Godzilla. That idea exists - it's in my brain. I'm prepared to say that the content/meaning of that idea exists - it's an abstract object. The idea in my brain expresses that content. So does the idea of Godzilla in someone else's brain - that's why it is possible for us to have "the same idea" ie to both have an idea that has the same content meaning.

But Godzillla doesn't exist. And is not the same as the idea of Godzilla. The idea of Godzilla can fit in my head. Even if Godzilla did exist, it's too big to fit in my head.

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.

you're still saying that you're using a fictional construct of time in fiction to dictate how you author the fiction.

My story about my super-mathematician had a couple of points.

First was to point out that it's trivial to tell a story about impossible things.

Second was to point out that it's trivial to tell a story about inconsistent/contradictory things - the idea that any person squared the circle is contradictory; the idea that any person designed a perpetual motion machine is inconsistent, as the same causal processes that are necessary conditions of anyone being a person (eg basic physical and chemical processes constitutive of and necessary for the continuing existence of all living things) make it impossible that there should be such a things as a perpetual motion machine.

Third was to point out that I can draw a line on consistency or inconsistency whereever I want. So I'm happy to tell a story about my super-mathematician doing these impossible things that involve self-contradiction and are actually inconsistent with my mathematician even existing, but I draw the line at my mathematician being in two places at once, and so insist that first the circle was squared, and then the perpetual motion machine designed.

The relevant constraints are (as [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has already pointed out) aesthetic ones - what conventions do I wish to follow, or perhaps to flout, in my storytelling? It's just laughable to say that a fictional construct of time in fiction to dictated how I authored the fiction. I mean, which construct do you even have in mind - the one that says the mathematician can't be in two places at once, or the one that says that perpetual motion machines are possible?

No fictional construct dictated anything. I decided to tell a story which conforms to some but not other ideas about what is possible in relation to time.

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.

I don't really understand this, but in any event here is what I did in my example: I told a story about a super-mathematician who squares the circle and who designs perpetual motion machines, but who is unable to do both at once.

If this was a RPG, presumably we would have rules which say things like "Whenever a player declares that his/her PC is trying to perform a feat of impossible mathematics or science, follow procedureX XYZ." Much like the spellcasting rules found in many fantasy RPGs.

(As I said, I don't understand what you mean by "without ever referring to any fiction whatsoever". If you mean "tell your story without telling your story", well that seems rather hard and I haven't done that. If you mean "tell your story about imaginary things without talking about any imaginary things" well I haven't done that either, for much the same reason. If you are assuming that to talk or think about something implies that it exists, well I refer you once again to Godzilla: from the fact that I've mentioned Godzilla several times in this post, it doesn't mean that Godzilla exists. From the fact that I've told a story about a super-mathemtician who can square the circle and design perpetual motion machines, it doesn't follow that any rule for constructing a square from a circle exists - there is no such rule - nor that any perpetual motion machine exists - there are no such machines.)

 

[Maxperson]

In the real world there exist real things that are really connected by real causal processes.

This morning in my bathroom something was making a dripping noise. Based on visual inspection I don't think it was a tap, so I infer that there must have been some water that had got "stuck" in some place (a soap holder; a plug hole) and was dripping out of there, making the noise. Clearly there was some process going on, although I don't know exactly what it was.

But a fiction doesn't have an existence independent of whatever is authored in respect of it. If I read a story, and a drip is mentioned, but the author doesn't tell me where the drip came from, there is no independent and objective truth of the matter.

The causal process cannot continue without the fiction. It's impossible for you to use the UMD skill to ignite a fireball in 3.5 without the causal process going through the fiction. It can't be done and still be playing the roleplaying game. Player declares his PC is using UMD on the wand of fireballs. There is no next step of roll and check the numbers as both the skill and the wand require fictional existence within a PC AND for the PC to attempt to use the wand via the skill. So the next step in the process must be for the fictional character to have those things and make an attempt. Once that attempt is made within the fiction, THEN you can engage the mechanics to see what happens, but you still aren't done. The effect takes place within the fiction, so you have to back there to continue or finish the process. The fireball goes off in the fiction if the skill is successful, and often the process continues back to the real world for some book keeping, but that isn't always the case. Cause and effect

In the real world, if I see a throng of people on the street then there is a true proposition that states the number of people in the throng. This is so whether or not I personally work out what that number is. But if a GM tells the players "You see a crowd outside the palace," there is no true proposition about the number of people in that crowd. Because the crowd has no objective existence. It's just something that someone made up! Likewise, there is no answer to the question "How long is the spout of the teapot in @chaochou's front garden that had a dragon living in it?"

One obvious consequence of this is that the players and GM can't guess at causation in the imaginary world of D&D. Any more than I can guess how many threads of cotton there are in Sherlock Holmes' shirt. I can ask the author. I can make up my own fanfic. But there's nothing for me to guess about!

There is a true number within the fiction. It just requires the DM to let the players know what that is. Once he does, that number given will have been the correct one the entire time. And while the DM can't guess it it, being for the purposes of the game a god who knows all, the players can guess at it all day long. The DM knows the objective answer having determined it, and he doesn't have to tell the players who can guess and guess and guess. There's nothing that says that a causal process is invalidated if it is created or involves fiction, rather than discovered and entirely in the real world. All that is required is that cause lead to effect.

 

[pemerton]

The causal process cannot continue without the fiction. It's impossible for you to use the UMD skill to ignite a fireball in 3.5 without the causal process going through the fiction. It can't be done and still be playing the roleplaying game. Player declares his PC is using UMD on the wand of fireballs. There is no next step of roll and check the numbers as both the skill and the wand require fictional existence within a PC AND for the PC to attempt to use the wand via the skill. So the next step in the process must be for the fictional character to have those things and make an attempt. Once that attempt is made within the fiction, THEN you can engage the mechanics to see what happens, but you still aren't done. The effect takes place within the fiction, so you have to back there to continue or finish the process. The fireball goes off in the fiction if the skill is successful, and often the process continues back to the real world for some book keeping, but that isn't always the case. Cause and effect

Like [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] said upthread, if you think that imaginary things are engaging in causal relations, you're off the reservation!

I've bolded the two key bits you've said about the fiction. The first is a game rule: in order to be permitted to make the "use a magic device" move, everyone has to agree that the shared fiction includes your PC holding a wand etc. If the fiction includes that, then the player of the character is allowed to say "I try and use the wand." The cause, here, is that everyone agrees on a story which includes the content of the player's act of authorship. The events of the story are not real, and are not causing anything.

As for "the effect takes place in the fiction" - what that means is that there is another game rule: if the UMD roll succeeds, then everyone has to agree that the shared ficiton includes a fireball shooting from the wand. That is, there is a rule about creating new fiction. The causal process, once again, is a social process which involves everyone agreeing on what a rule requires, and then following that rule.

If people decide to break the rule - eg the GM applies the 2nd ed AD&D/White Wolf "golden rule" advice to ignore the mechanics, because s/he thinks it would be more fun if the fireball didn't happen - then the fiction won't contain a fireball being shot from the wand. Because the GM has authored it differently.

To reiterate: the cause and effect you are identifying are game rules that actual people in the real world are following: rules about what to do when a certain bit of fiction is authored; and rules about what fiction to author following a certain mechanical process being resolved.

In the real world, if I see a throng of people on the street then there is a true proposition that states the number of people in the throng. This is so whether or not I personally work out what that number is. But if a GM tells the players "You see a crowd outside the palace," there is no true proposition about the number of people in that crowd. Because the crowd has no objective existence.

There is a true number within the fiction. It just requires the DM to let the players know what that is. Once he does, that number given will have been the correct one the entire time. And while the DM can't guess it it, being for the purposes of the game a god who knows all, the players can guess at it all day long. The DM knows the objective answer having determined it, and he doesn't have to tell the players who can guess and guess and guess.

This is equally nonsense.

In a Traveller session I GMed a few weeks ago, the PCs were at a market on a low-tech world, buying trinkets. How many stalls were there at the market? I don't know. The players don't know. They can't try and guess, as there is nothing too guess.

You say "It just requires the DM to let the players know what that is." But I can't do that, as I DON'T KNOW IT. I could make it up, but the only causation at work there is causation in my brain.

You also say "Once he does, that number given will have been the correct one the entire time." Which is absolutely confused. Because the bolded phrase clearly refers to real time in the real world, not imaginary time within the fiction.

To elaborate: Suppose that I make up, now, that there were 17 stalls at the market. It's simpely not true that, yesterday, the story included there being 17 stalls. That's a bit of the story that I wrote just now. (Authorship is a process that happens in time. That's why sometimes authors die with unfinished books, which have correspondingly gappy stories.)

But it makes no sense to say that "Yesterday, within the fiction, there were 17 stalls just as now, within the fiction, there were 17 stalls." Because, within the fiction, the "yesterday" and "now" of the real world have no purchase.

As [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] posted upthread, playing "let's pretend" can be fun. But trying to maintain the stories you imagined have real causal power, and trying to suggest that the author is really coming to know them - so that players wondering what the GM will decide should really be described as trying to guess the truth about the story - is deluded.

Fiction is fiction. It's imaginary. Made up. You can make it be whatever you want. You can agree to whatever rules you want in respect of how you author it. It's all under you control, as author; or your collective control, as a group of authors. It doesn't, and can't, control you.

 

[pemerton]

There is a true number within the fiction.

Here's another go at this.

In my Traveller game, the world of Olyx - where there PCs have just arrived - has population 1 (ie in the 10s, and less than 100). I've told my players that the number of people on the world is 50-odd. Suppose I get hit by a truck on the way to work tomorrow. What is the "true number", within the fiction, of people on Olyx?

Answer: none. That bit of the fiction hasn't even been written.

And you can't extrapolate from the established fiction. How would you even do that? It's a sci fi game - it's chock full of impossibilities, like human/alien hybrids, FTL travel, gravitic propulsion (complete with grav plates and inertial stabilisers to make starship interiors feel just like home), etc. Among all that, how can we say that the number of people on a world must be a natural number? Or even a rational one?

 

[Maxperson]

Like [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] said upthread, if you think that imaginary things are engaging in causal relations, you're off the reservation!

I've bolded the two key bits you've said about the fiction. The first is a game rule: in order to be permitted to make the "use a magic device" move, everyone has to agree that the shared fiction includes your PC holding a wand etc. If the fiction includes that, then the player of the character is allowed to say "I try and use the wand." The cause, here, is that everyone agrees on a story which includes the content of the player's act of authorship. The events of the story are not real, and are not causing anything.

As for "the effect takes place in the fiction" - what that means is that there is another game rule: if the UMD roll succeeds, then everyone has to agree that the shared ficiton includes a fireball shooting from the wand. That is, there is a rule about creating new fiction. The causal process, once again, is a social process which involves everyone agreeing on what a rule requires, and then following that rule.

If people decide to break the rule - eg the GM applies the 2nd ed AD&D/White Wolf "golden rule" advice to ignore the mechanics, because s/he thinks it would be more fun if the fireball didn't happen - then the fiction won't contain a fireball being shot from the wand. Because the GM has authored it differently.

To reiterate: the cause and effect you are identifying are game rules that actual people in the real world are following: rules about what to do when a certain bit of fiction is authored; and rules about what fiction to author following a certain mechanical process being resolved.

So here's a test for you then. Using the 3.5 rules. While playing D&D, come up with a way to go from the player declaration of UMD on the wand to the fireball happening, without having to go to the fiction during the process. If you you can do that, I'll concede the point that the fiction isn't part of the cause and effect.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think a GM who is learning to play in the 'Pemertonian scene framing' technique should probably hold off on creating an agenda for himself, at least on purpose. I mean, once you've been around that tree a few times, sure, experiment, figure it out! I'd say as a start, make all the elements generally supporting of and directed at establishing, contextualizing, and focusing on the player's agendas as described by the conflicts their characters get into and the needs they express.

Sure, that sounds like reasonable advice.

Eh, I don't know about that. I think GM-centered play puts a LOT of weight on the GM's shoulders. I think its pretty hard to pull off well. I think a collaborative narrative type of play is probably no easier, but poor or good GMing helps/hurts in both styles. Obviously if you play in a specific way, you point out the flaws you found when you played a different way, that explains your choice! I think we all chose, so we all have experiences of issues with alternate ways of playing. I don't think anyone is particularly trying to be biased. I mean, I KNOW I can run a pretty decent game in traditional style. Its a proven thing for me. I just like the other style better.

I agree with most of what you say here. I was not saying that GM driven play doesn't rely heavily on the GM. I just don't think it must mean an absence of player agency. I think that for the most obvious example of D&D, yes, player agency is not present in the sense of authoring things into the fiction through action declaration. Players cannot author the presence of an object by declaring that their character searches for said object.

But does that mean that player agency is therefore absent from the game? Of course not.

I don't mind flaws being pointed out about a particular style. I'm willing to point them out myself. It's just when none are seen on the other side...that gets a bit frustrating.

One could argue that to the extent your game has those virtues you are converging on [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s style of play, or mine, etc. It really IS a continuum. I think its possible to find strengths in GM centered play, although I also think that a lot of games aren't really leveraging those, and might be even more cool if they tried to mix in some player agenda.

The first part here is all I am really trying to say. There can be strengths in GM centered play. And I also like your reference to play being a continuum. I feel that I use methods of both player driven and GM driven play, depending on what it is we're trying to do, and what aspects of the game are involved.

The fact that some games don't leverage those strengths may indeed be true. But then that's a matter of preference and what one's desired goal is for play. For someone playing a very Gygaxian kind of "classic" D&D, I doubt that they see the lack of leverage for player input on the fiction beyond advocating and acting for their character all that much.

I wouldn't argue that it is. I argue that it is what it is, but that often it DOES get in the way of player agendas, at which time it becomes detrimental, and a LOT of GM's don't seem to know better.

Right. This is what I mean by GM performance being the issue. If the GM and the players want a different kind of experience than the default, then they need to do things differently. If they decide at the start of a D&D 5E game that the elements of the story are going to be based on what the players bring to the table during character generation, then yes, the DM needs to incorporate those ideas into the game.