What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Maxperson]

I think this misses the entire point of the whole thread from the start. Nobody argued that GM-centered play, and any attendant world building, couldn't be 'principled'. The assertion is that it HAS A DIFFERENT AGENDA. There are different characteristics inherent to these techniques. In a GM-centered play system it is axiomatic that the focus is in terms of what the GM is presenting. In a player-centric game it is axiomatic that the focus is on the agenda brought to the table by the players. This is a qualitative difference that is not related to how well each GM sticks to his principles. If such a qualitative difference does not exist, then what are we discussing here?

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is constantly talking about the DM railroading(being unprincipled) the players by giving them choose your own adventure novels to play in, which doesn't at all describe our style of game play. And when challenged about players abusing their authorial powers, people on his side of things(can't remember if he's done it or not, but [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has) fall back on the social contract(being principled) preventing players from doing that. I'm just saying that the social contract(principled) argument works for both playstyles.

It seems to me that the controversial point, to some of you, is the assertion by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] et al that, to the extent that a game addresses player concerns, it becomes a player-driven game. I think there are finer points that can be discussed, but this too seems kind of self evident. The counter assertion seems to be that as long as the CHARACTERS are fictionally not depicted as being forced to do something, and their choices appear meaningful from character stance, that the players have agency. This seems to be IMHO incoherent, if the players choices of moves cannot produce fiction of the player's choosing, then they're really only choosing between the GM's options, and they are dependent on the GM to address their agenda, entirely.

This I take exception to a little bit. We aren't countering with "CHARACTERS are fictionally not depicted as being forced to do something,". They are not ever forced to do something unless some game mechanic or game play dictates it, like being imprisoned or a domination spell. That and "their choices appear meaningful from character stance". Their choices are meaningful. You don't have to have authorial power to make a meaningful character decision. Moral dilemmas and character growing roleplay/situations come up very often in my games. Often where I had no idea they would be there. Lastly, my game never, EVER boils down to players "only choosing between the GM's options" or being "dependent on the GM to address their agenda,". They dictate it to me. While I prepare things in advance, they can go with those things or strike off on their own whenever they wish. Once they walked into a town and barbarian tribes in the north were mentioned in passing. One player decided his PC wanted to go take one over and become chief. The other players supported him and off they went away from what I had prepared. It was great. Most of my game is reacting to what they do, not proactively directing them with any sort of agenda of my own. They choose their agenda and go for it. They may or may not succeed, and in this case the PC did succeed, but they dictated that agenda to me and did not at all choose between GM options.

I think its reasonable to ask your question "given that player's power is not unlimited, to what extent is the game still dependent on the GM for the agenda?" and this is a GOOD question! In some systems, like Cortex+ and BW there are actual rules that stipulate that the GM only has a specific amount of power over the fiction, so clearly if you play a game like that then the answer must be "there's a balance of power between them and they share it." In D&D, with its 'rule 0' type of structure, that isn't the case from pure mechanics, the GM could just steamroller everyone in mechanical terms, even if that GM is [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. So, yes, it requires principled play by a GM in D&D, NO MATTER WHAT way you play it! That's just a characteristic of D&D! It isn't a characteristic of Cortex+...

The player is partially dependent on the DM only in so far as the DM will come up with ways for the player to attempt success and possibly fail to achieve the player's agenda. If the player is abiding by the social contract(being principled), then they aren't going to attempt agendas that are wildly inappropriate, such as putting together a nuclear warhead and missile to launch at Waterdeep. Outside of inappropriate agendas, the DM has an obligation not to say no or set up the world to outright thwart the attempt, so the players are free to pursue their agendas without fear that the DM will be unprincipled AND knowing that they are not dependent on the DM for those agendas to come into being. The players are the ones who dictate the agendas.

 

[pemerton]

There are about 60 posts (including 20+ "pemerton" quote and mention tags) that I haven't caught up on. I am responding as I read through them.

In my game, such a specific goal for the players would not be sitting in some random kitchen. It would likely have a specified location. In this sense, I realize I am being very "GM driven", but I don't really see the reason to avoid this. I don't really think it actually robs players of agency, either, except in the sense that they cannot author the presence of the map wherever they may like. Which to me, is a pretty broad application of agency. I also don't allow players to kick me in the nethers....but I don't think anyone would say that's denying them agency. Maybe a few people, but not most.

Now, if you're talking about a map that the player has suggested, that's different. Not something the GM has in mind beforehand, but an idea that occurs to the player and they run with it. So they find themselves in the gnoll warmaster's quarters, having killed him and secured the location. And one of the player says "I'd like to see if there are any maps that may show the areas the gnolls might be targeting?" In such a case, I'd likely be happy they suggested this and allow them to search, and have the result of the check reveal the presence or usefulness of the maps.

You contrast here a specific goal for the players with a map that a player has suggested.

Where did the "specific goal" come from? If the goal of play is something that comes from the GM rather than the players, then (everything else being equal) that to me suggests a lower rather than a higher degree of player agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction.

And if this is a specific goal with location authored by the GM, more broadly in a setting authored by the GM, then the players' search for it is going to involve - as far as I can tell, and unless I've misunderstood something - a number of moves that trigger the GM to tell them about that authored setting. Again, to me, and everything else being equal, that suggests a lower rather than a higher degree of player agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction.

What it looks like, to me - again, everything else being equal and doing my best to make sense of the example - is that the GM has established a gameworld and established a quest for the players, with the map as a part of that. To me that looks like a GM-driven game with a relatively modest degree of player agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction.

 

[pemerton]

The players write their own script for their characters' lines (i.e. what their characters actually say) and provide stage direction for what the characters do (their in-game actions) and how they move (where they go within the game world). That's almost infintely more agency than an actor has on a movie set or a stage.

But is not infinitely more agencyu than the reader of a choose-your-own adventure book has. It's actually quite comparable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, exactly. I’m all about trusting the players. But I feel like there is little trust being afforded to the GM throughout much of this discussion. I’m not sure why.

Does it boil down to game mechanics? If you introduce a game that uses more player driven elements and takes the weight off the GM, that’s fine. And I can understand that as a preferred style.

I just don’t know if that’s the only way to achieve it.

It isn't about TRUST, it is about "what is the most reliable and useful process by which to translate the player's agenda and wants into the narrative so they get to play characters that address those things?" That's all it is about. Why go through the roundabout process of having a GM devise an entire setting in detail without reference to the players, and then try to translate that into addressing what they are interested in? Why make every element of the plot and setting the sole responsibility of the GM so that he has to figure out a way to understand what the players want and then do it, instead of just having the player say "My character is interested in overthrowing the Duke, I think I know a guy that has some dirt on him <throws Streetwise check>. YUP! OK, so now I know that the Duke actually had an older brother, but he mysteriously disappeared before their father died..." What is really wrong with that? I don't get it. Its just a lot more reliable and less work in my long experience than hoping that the GM will 'get' your suggestions and deign to add said NPC to the game.

I mean, its not as if the GM can't say after the player's declaration above, "yes, but the guy you want has just been sent on campaign, so you can't ask him about it, and all you heard was a rumor that his wife gave you. If you want to find out the truth, you're going to have to dig deeper. As you return from your friend's house <check made behind screen> you get the feeling someone is watching you..."

Its not like the GM is ceding all his role in constructing the plot here. He's just not the only one anymore that can introduce some element of narrative into the fiction.

Now, lets say the character finds out that he needs a map in order to figure out where to look for another clue (something the wife said keyed him in on this, which required a history check, note that in my process this is ALL an SC). So the map is searched for, and maybe its found in the kitchen, lucky break! Maybe it isn't found, and the player is left failing to advance this element of the plot. OK, that's fine, there's always some other direction to go in, he can take a journey to find that guy that knows the stuff. He can try to nab one of the people following him. He can just find some other way to undermine the Duke.

 

[pemerton]

@Maxperson, @Lanefan @hawkeyefan and others (including myself) have not hidden the fact that player authorial control is limited in our games, we just do not equate player agency with authorial control over the setting.

Step 0 is agreeing to the definition of agency

I have constantly referrred to "player agency over the content of the shared fiction". And have equally made it clear that if the player's sole agency is to declare line for their PCs, and to declare actions whose actual resolution is significantly or primarily hostage to unrevealed backstory authored by the GM, then the players have only very modest agency in the respect that I'm talking about.

Based on what we have read @chaochou's players have an even greater amount of player agency than @pemerton's given the authorial power they possess.
So yes, player agency varies across the board from the so-called GM-driven games to the Player-driven games.

I think this is all true.

 

[pemerton]

The problem, I think with some of the discussion, as the latest post by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] suggests is not that there are diverging viewpoints on player agency, I think fundamentally we all are using the same definition, but some people believe that anything under a certain amount of player agency is tantamount to no player agency.

Well, terms like "little" or "modest" aren't simply synonyms or euphemisms for "none".
[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] seems to think that it is an important aspect of player agency that the players provide colour (what their PCs say, wear, etc). I personally don't agree, as a player can do this in the most egregious railroad imaginable.

Lanefan likewise seems to think that it is an important aspect of player agency that the players can declare actions for their PCs ("I move from A to B"; "I attack the orc"; "I look for the map"). I regard this as only very modest agency: except in the most dysfunctional game players have enjoy this sort of agency in any RPG. What is significant, in my view, is what happens in the resolution of these action declarations. If the fiction that will be encountered at B, that will result from the attempt to search the map, and even that will result from attacking the orc (see [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s example upthread of the fiction that results from charming the harlot) are all authored by the GM on the basis of unrevealed notes and ideas about the setting, then the player is exercising very little agency - all s/he is doing is triggering the GM to narrate and perhaps first to make up some fiction.

 

[pemerton]

YYou keep repeating this as if being social prevents cause and effect.

No. I have repeatedly referred to social processes as a complex form of causal process. My point is that imaginary orcs and imaginary wands and imaginary maps are not elements of social processes.

Also, imagining an orc and then doing something in response to that does not mean that an imaginary orc made you do it.

 

[pemerton]

you’re obviously not interested, so I’ll leave it at that.

I replied to one of your posts before reading this. Feel free to disregard that reply if you like.

 

[pemerton]

This is why I disagree with your premise in the OP as the boardgame style is still VERY prevalent today (in particular in D&D games) and this is clearly evident given the AP and modules which are being published by WotC.

EDIT: The type of player agency you require for your games is just not as important in the (for lack of a better term) boardgame style where fictional positioning of the map is done by the DM.

I think this is an important point. The boardgame type play does involve a very different sort of agency.

But [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] doesn't describe a boardgame type of play in his posts - he talks about PCs in a town, talking to NPCs to be assigned missions which involve travelling overland and interacting with various other beings.

I don't think [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] plays in the boardgame style, either.

The boardgame style depends upon a very high degree of austerity in the setting, so that everything that is salient and relevant is not only known by the GM, but is relatively straightforwardly knowable/learnable by the players (this will obviously vary across tables - for Gygax GMing Rob Kuntz the standardf for learnability is pretty liberal, but that's because the latter is a very experienced player who has a very high familiarity with the former as a GM).

Repeated exploration of the dungeon, strong and knowable conventions around how the dungeon-state evolves in response to PC incursions, etc are all part of it. Meaningful scope for player choice in how to explore and clear the board is also a part of it.

I don't think a module like Sunless Citadel meets these standards - just to give one real-world example. I think that White Plume Mountain does.

 

[pemerton]

If it’s bad for a GM to deny the introduction of the map through action declaration, then it stands that it is good to allow it. But does allowing it come with its own set of drawbacks?

Look, I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I like that way of playing. Eg if less GM control over the direction of the story is a drawback, then yes it has that drawback. But GM control over the direction of the story isn't something I'm personally looking for in RPGing?

What drawbacks do you have in mind?

EDIT: OK, so this post suggested one drawback that you have in mind:

if players can author elements to the game, what is to stop them from manufacturing their goals in an undramatic and unsatisfying way? Is it the GM’s framing? If so, then what is the difference between that and a GM relying on his notes? If they both prevent the players from concocting a simple solution to their problem, then are they really all that different?

Or is it principled play by the players? Where the agency exists for them to add elements to the game, but they limit themselves to only the elements that add dramatic weight?

Well, most RPGs that I'm familiar with try to deal with this in character creation, and also in the general conventions for play that they establish.

Part of PC build in BW is establishing your PC's Beliefs. It is understood that these will be tested and challenged in play. Part of PC build in Cortex+ Heroic is establishing milestones. It is understood that these will require engaging in heroic derring-do in order to be met. Part of PC build in 4e is creating a PC with a class and race and alignment that establish a certain orientation towards heroic fantasy adventuring. And you can't earn XP except by engaging in such activity.

In my 4e game the PCs were searching for a map to the Soul Abattoir. But the players understood that the Soul Abattoir is an epic-tier thing - going there = fighting Torog, a god. So there is equally an understanding that the map is not itself a focus of play: it is more like a plot device, that will emerge in due course - and when it does, the choices will be (i) now that they can go there, do they?, (ii) if so, how do they get there?, (iii) if they go there, how will they beat Torog?, and (iv) if they beat Torog, what do they do once he is beaten? In my own game, they went there, making a bargain with some devils to help with that; they did beat Torog, and once he was beaten (a) they sent the freed souls to the Raven Queen rather than Vecna, and (b) one of the PCs - a paladin of Moradin - took on Torog's portfolio of pain, torture and imprisonment.

I'm sure it's possible to run 4e in other ways, but as I've experienced it has this strong pacing dimension to it, which is driven by the steep levelling curve that is part of the "tiers of play". Some options simply don't open up in a meaningful way until the PCs reach the appropriate level, and once they do the interesting question is not "can we?" but "do we?"

In my BW game there have been two searches that I can remember - for a mace, and for a vessel to catch blood. I've mentioned both of them extensively in this thread, and so won't repeat in this post but am happy to do if requested to. What made the mace search dramatic was that (in the fiction) it was the first return to the ruined tower since the brother was possessed by a balrog 14 years earlier; and (at the table) it was the first time in play the PC was in the ruined tower. What made the vessle search dramatic was that if all the blood is lost, the PC can't fulfill the command given to him by the dark naga that has dominatd him.

There is nothing to stop a BW player establishing as a Belief for his/her PC "I will live a boring but satisfying life" - but the player has to understand that the GM is going to frame situations that will put this to the test, that being the whole point of the game.

As for the difference between framing in response to player-authored Beliefs, action declarations, etc; and working from pre-authored notes - the mace and vessel example , the angel feather example, the Soul Abattoir example, the example of travelling down to Enlil to look for alien artefacts on sale in a marketplace - all should be enough to illustrate the point. The player moves establish the focus of the action, and the GM is responding to and going back-and-forth with the players' cues, rather than the GM telling the players something that s/he thought might be interesting independently of all that.