What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ovinomancer]

"Orthogonal to" = at right angles to, or - in the context of discussion, analysis and argument - cutting across and/or not running in the same direction as.

EDIT: more-or-less as [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] said.

"To" and "as" being operative. The times you've used this you've made statements like, "This is orthogonal." You've then not been clear what this is orthogonal to or not running in the same direction as. Correct usage requires being clear what the other thing is; "This is orthogonal to this other thing."

I thought pointing out a minor pet peeve on word usage with a Princess Bride paraphrase would have been funny. Apparently, that humor didn't parse well. My apologies to those that took the time to answer with respect despite my failed attempt at humor.

 

[Lanefan]

I've not defined agency as anything. I have talked about a form of agency that I am interested in - namely, player agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction.

Fair enough.

I guess the problem we're having is that while you're interested in that specific form of agency, not everyone is. Further, even though some less-played systems promote it by design not everyone sees it as a relevant component of the overall agency held by players in most 'mainstream' games/systems; which are what most of us play and are thus a) familiar with and b) basing our thoughts on.

I have also talked about other sorts of agency - eg (apropos of your reference to "gamism") I have talked about the very different sort of agency that is present in classic D&D dungeoneering play (beating the dungeon by mapping it, and coming up with effective methods of looting), and have identified some of the conceits and conventions of play that are necessary to make this work.

And more relevant, you've here acknowledged those forms of agency exist. This hasn't always been clear up to now.

As far as Eero Tuovinen's blog is concerned:

(i) He draws upon a pre-existing body of analysis - The Forge discussions of narrativism ...

And from my standpoint he might as well pack it in right there.

What Edwards calls "transcript" is the story I want to get out of a campaign; and it's also the story being written during play.

All the rest of Edwards' stuff is...well, to keep Eric's grandma happy I probably better hadn't use the words I'd like to use for it.

Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another.

This sort of thing can easily arise out of a Gygaxian dungeon. All it needs is some immersion into character by the players and a dM who's willing to give them the time between the combats to roleplay their stories/emotions out. They don't even all have to relate to the current adventure e.g. romantic entanglements between PCs, or rivalries friendly or otherwise, or pranks, etc.

The Now also means "get to it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about.

As long as it doesn't tread on the toes of things raised in my last paragraph.

(2) Eero Tuovinen doesn't say that players have no authority to author backstory. Eg:

One of the players is a gamemaster . . . The rest of the players each have their own characters to play . . . [O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character

Part of how a player knows his/her PC is because s/he knows the PC's backstory (which contributes to establishing dramatic needs).​

Yet he's also very clear that backstory belongs to the DM. A bit contradictory, this.

I have given examples of what I have in mind. I think they're pretty clear:

To the extent that an important part of play is making moves that trigger the GM to tell them stuff that the GM has (literally or notionally) in his/her notes, the players are not exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction. They are triggering the GM to exercise such agency (if the notes are purely notional) or to relate the outcome of prior such exercised of agency (if the notes are literal). This may happen in a game with a pre-conceived story or plot; it may happen in some forms of sandbox; it is an important part of classic dungeoneering.

To the extent that the content of GM framing reflects the GM's conception of the situation, the point of the game, the nature of the gameworld, etc, that is the GM and not the players exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction. Again, this may or may not be related to the GM having a pre-conceived story or plot.

To the extent that the outcomes of action resolution are determined by treating prior GM authorship of (hitherto unrevealed) bits of the setting as a component of the fictional positioning, rather than using the action resolution mechanics to determine what happens in the fiction, the GM rather than the players is exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction. This may be related to the GM having a pre-conceived story or plot (". . . and then they find the map where it got lost in the kitchen, which means that . . ."); or it may be simply because the GM has made a catalogue of gameworld elements ("the study has a desk in it with empty drawers; the kitchen has a map in the breadbin, where someone accidentally dropped it; the guard is not amenable to being bribed; etc, etc").

These techniques are often related - eg the more that the third is a feature of play, then the more likely the first will be also, as the players try to make moves that reveal the hitherto unrevealed fictional positioning. (In this thread various posters have described this as "exploring the gameworld", "acquiring information", "investigating", etc.) And one and three tend to lead to two, as they lead to the GM's ideas about the gameworld becoming a prominent aspect of play.

I don't see what is confusing about any of this.​

I don't see what is bad about any of this.

Lanefan​

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That is not an example of the GM not influencing the action at all. The parameters for action declaration have all been established by the GM!

Or by the author of the published adventure. In other words, the DM has no creative input during the game itself. And I’m not saying I agree anyway. My point was simply that there are players who believe that anything other than “secret backstory” is infringing on their player agency.

The D&D combat rules give the players a form of control of the fiction. Eg if a player declares "My PC attacks the orc" then (unless certain, relatively uncommon, defeating factors are present) it is true in the fiction that the PC attacks the orc. And if the numbers on the to hit and damage dice are such that (i) the to hit number is high enough relative to AC, and (ii) the hit points dealt equal or exceed the orc's hit points, then the orc is dead - ie a change in the fiction resulting from the resolution of the player's action declaration.

It's not fiat authorship, but it is clearly a type of control.

Which I acknowledged. But that’s not the type of authorship I was referring to. I was referring specifically to authorship of the setting and fiction beyond the decisions and actions of their character. And D&D, with the exception of the establishment of the character background primarily during character creation, does not explicitly provide for that.

Both were simply examples of what defines “player agency” within the context of those types of game play.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I understand what sort of game [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] is describing. I'm just saying that it's a mistake to say that the GM doesn't influence the action at all. When one says that the fictional environment establishes a parameter for action declaration , and also note that the GM established the fictional environment, we see that the GM is influencing actions a great deal.

First, setting up the parameters for the action is different than authoring the fiction.

Second, I was describing a specific type of player that clearly defines player agency different than you. I didn't say that I thought the DM didn't have any influence, and nor did I explicitly say they didn't. What their definition of player agency seems to indicate is that they don't want the DM to introduce new elements to the fiction itself. Yes, I know that even in reacting to the actions of the PCs to play the part of the NPCs and monsters does this, and the setting up of the dungeon itself does too. And in past discussions both you and I have pointed these facts out.

The DM obviously exerts more influence in this type of game during social interactions, but most of these types of players focus almost entirely on the exploration aspect of the game (which involves combat), in the wilderness and/or dungeon. Overarching plots, if there is one, tend to be of the "threat to civilization" type where the villains are holed up in their lair, apparently content to let the PCs come in and foil their plans. A Keep on the Borderlands rather than a Castle Ravenloft approach.

All of this, of course, was in the context of pointing out that player agency means very different things depending on the context of the game itself.

In thinking about the significance of this for play, I think it's helpful to think about game conventions or conceits. If I turn up to play a session of Moldvay Basic, or of the sort of D&D that Gygax describes in the "Successful Adventuring" section of his PHB, then of course the fictional situation is going to be a dungeon. That's what the game is about. And it has a lot of system elements - mechanics, methods, implicit understandings - to support play in that context.

If I turn up to play a game of AD&D and the GM says, "Right, you're in a desert" that's already very different from the Moldvay Basic case.

This is one of the flaws in the post you originally referenced in my opinion. While the Moldvay rule book doesn't have wilderness rules per se, the Moldvay Basic Set was packaged with B2. He obviously didn't know that when he picked up the game to play it. From my perspective, the rules encompass what comes in the box, because that package was designed to give beginning players and DMs everything they need to know to run the game. And in that context, finding the dungeon - the exploration - is an important part of the game. The module spends quite a bit of space describing the keep and its purpose, and then wilderness adventuring to the degree that the DM is instructed to add their own material to the wilderness, including a specific location for their own dungeon. Note that it doesn't leave them blank space within the dungeon itself, but that the DMs creative input is directed toward the wilderness.

So my expectation would be that the game would start outside the dungeon in question if I'm playing Moldvay basic. And indeed, nearly every "B" module released in the Moldvay basic era does not start at the door of a dungeon, there is exploration required first.

 

[Morrus]

Just as a side note, since you have neither the courage to say what you think it means, nor the courtesy to try to establish how that differs from the way in which it has been used, your opinion is worthless. Just cowardly, passive aggressive rubbish.

If you're crtitiquing someone's use of language, the onus is on you to show that what 'you think' is correct. But you won't even state what you think. Not only are you wrong, you're gutless with it.

Namecalling is *not* appropriate. Please do not post in this thread again.

 

[Maxperson]

Where does that information come from? If the GM didn't think of it, who did? (I'm taking it as given that, being fiction, it didn't write itself.)

If it's not pre-authored information, then it's authored on the spot like you play it. The players have dictated the authoring of that information by coming up with something I didn't think of, which triggered me to think of something I didn't pre-author to give to them, or at least give them the chance to receive if the outcome is in doubt.

There are ways to have avoided the situation had they taken them - what does this mean, other than that there is stuff that the GM might have told the players, but they didn't make the right moves to be told that stuff?

It means that they had ways through player agency to thwart to theft. I'm going to refer you back to the post below, since you seem to have ignored it.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...uilding*-for&p=7354332&viewfull=1#post7354332

 

[Maxperson]

The D&D combat rules give the players a form of control of the fiction. Eg if a player declares "My PC attacks the orc" then (unless certain, relatively uncommon, defeating factors are present) it is true in the fiction that the PC attacks the orc. And if the numbers on the to hit and damage dice are such that (i) the to hit number is high enough relative to AC, and (ii) the hit points dealt equal or exceed the orc's hit points, then the orc is dead - ie a change in the fiction resulting from the resolution of the player's action declaration.

This is no different than, "My PC does action X" then (unless certain, relatively uncommon, defeating factors are present) it is true in the fiction that PC does action X. And if the numbers on the d20 roll are such that the d20 roll is high enough relative to the DC, the action happens or information is given and there is a change in the fiction resulting from the resolution of the player's action declaration.

It's not fiat authorship, but it is clearly a type of control.

And yet somehow, it's not control when it happens outside of combat. It's "choose your own adventure". There is no difference between pre-authored orcs with pre-authored ACs and HPs, and the DMs pre-authored world content. If your combat example is player control over the fiction, then the rest is as well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've not defined agency as anything. I have talked about a form of agency that I am interested in - namely, player agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction.

I have also talked about other sorts of agency - eg (apropos of your reference to "gamism") I have talked about the very different sort of agency that is present in classic D&D dungeoneering play (beating the dungeon by mapping it, and coming up with effective methods of looting), and have identified some of the conceits and conventions of play that are necessary to make this work.

I have also talked, at length and in many posts (eg some just made, which repeat points that appear to have been missed in earlier posts) about ways in which players can exercise agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction.

This is a definition of agency, though, so I'm not sure what you're arguing against. This isn't a critique, it's a clear statement about the fact that you've defined agency for the purposes of your discussion as relating to the content of the shared fiction ONLY. Every time you use the word agency in this thread without explicit reference otherwise (like the above mention) this is what I'm assuming you mean.

As far as Eero Tuovinen's blog is concerned:

(i) He draws upon a pre-existing body of analysis - The Forge discussions of narrativism - in the blog I have linked to. He makes this quite explicit. Player agency in narrativism is all about agency over the content of the shared fiction: see eg here:

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:

*Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.

*Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.

*Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.​

Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about.

There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s).​

For others not already steeped in GNS theory, Exploration (capital E) means playing the game, not exploring somewhere inside the game.

Forge-speak is opaque at best. What this is saying in simpler terms is that play focuses on the immediate scene only - there are no bits decided about the next scene until this one is concluded -- and that a focus of play is about some human issue. That's more opaqueness, as what a 'human issue' is isn't clearly defined by the term, but usually it means something about how people interact and the goals of people. So, then, the game should focus primarily on the motivations and goals of the characters that are played by the humans playing the game.

The bits about the 'now' are kinda loose, though. The idea is that there isn't a preplanned 'next scene' in story now games, it's only about this scene. The next scene won't exist until we know how this scene completes, and then the next scene will generate based on how this scene resolved. So, if you have a 'scene' about negotiating with orcs in a ruined village the next scene can't be created at all until that resolves, and then the next scene would be framed based on the outcome of the negotiation scene. By this, the fact I had an encounter map for the dungeon under the keep, or even the fact that there was a dungeon under the keep, was not Story Now play because it was determined in advance of the completion of the negotiation scene, which is a no-no. Had the negotiation scene ended with it having been introduced -- either by players or by the DM in response to a player statement -- that there was a dungeon, then that's now acceptable for a possible next scene (provided that the dungeon naturally flows as the next scene from the previous one).

This is why you see so much made of scenes, they are the core unit of play for Story Now.

This is also why I've made comments about more broadly focused scenes -- for instance, my play example of the orcs in the ruined village, the orcs in the ruined keep, and the dungeon under the keep were a single, broadly framed scene. The action is 'how will you resolve finding an anvil here', but the scene isn't immediately framed into crisis onto that question. Rather, it's set up so that the players have many choices to advance through the scene to answer the question posed -- can we find the anvil? -- and the crisis points aren't hard framed into the scene but allowed to develop through repeated action declarations by the players. Yes, a lot of prepped material is used, and some of the interactions are asking the DM to reveal more about the scene (read from notes), but the crisis points are generated by the players making action declarations and engaging mechanics until a crisis develops. In this play example, the first crisis was instated by the players trying to parley with usually hostile orcs. The second was the fight that occurred due to a failed stealth challenge. The third was the fight in the dungeon where the mechanics led to the characters failing their attempt to recover the orc warboss. There will be a few more in the next session as they try again with the consequences of their first failure complicating the attempt. I, as DM, didn't set any of these crisis points ahead of time - the occurred due to player action declarations and use of mechanics. None of my notes resulted in these action declarations failing.

The point of the above is that my play example does revolve around human issues -- did the players wish to exterminate the orcs or make friends with them and what does that mean for the characters and the fiction? Given the premise -- the players are stranded in a foreign plane of existence with no means of escape and limited resources, the decision to try to befriend the orcs and gain some allies is pretty weighty. Further, I don't have a 'next scene' planned after this -- however this plays out, the players will make a decision on what to do next to advance their immediate goals.

(2) Eero Tuovinen doesn't say that players have no authority to author backstory. Eg:

One of the players is a gamemaster . . . The rest of the players each have their own characters to play . . . [O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character​

Part of how a player knows his/her PC is because s/he knows the PC's backstory (which contributes to establishing dramatic needs).

Eero makes a pretty clear distinction between DM authority over backstory and that small authority that a player may have (based on system, as noted by Eero) to define aspects of their character's backstory. In other words, character backstory isn't the backstory Eero is referencing the DM having authority over in his blog post.

Eero also doesn't say that the DM always has authority over backstory, and he refers to the cases where the DM doesn't as narrative sharing. You've explicitly disavowed that you use narrative sharing in your play, while acknowledging others in this thread do. Eero's entire point in that blog post is that narrative sharing is incoherent with DM authority over backstory and also is very likely incoherent with character advocacy. The latter because shared narration in support of character advocacy leads to Czege Principle violations. Also, most shared narration has a goal that isn't character advocacy. If you are expected to narrate in a manner that is best for the game instead of best for your character, this is incoherent with character advocacy.

Finally, as a point, Eero doesn't talk about agency at all in his blog posts. I think that's telling that he doesn't consider the concept of agency to be important to game design discussion and prefers terms like narration and advocacy.

I'm sorry you find what I'm describing confusing. There are any number of RPGs that are written to be run (more-or-less) along the lines of the "standard narrativistic model", where the role of the players and of the GM is (more-or-less) as Eero Tuovinen describes; and in which players exercise agency over the shared fiction in the sorts of ways I have described in posts in this thread.

The only confusion I had was the usual adjustment and slow process of deducing what you mean with your unique definition of terms. Once I understood what you were going for by unravelling the chaff around your usages, I understood you fine. I disagree with you, and I think you're too narrowly focused on a topic that's not revealing of actual play differences at all, or, rather, that there's a better architecture to discuss the difference you're trying to highlight than using loaded terms like 'agency'. Again, note that Eero avoids that term, largely because it doesn't have a majority accepted definition and is already a charged term (you don't have as much power as I do is, after all, not something people will generally like to hear).

I have given examples of what I have in mind. I think they're pretty clear:

To the extent that an important part of play is making moves that trigger the GM to tell them stuff that the GM has (literally or notionally) in his/her notes, the players are not exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction. They are triggering the GM to exercise such agency (if the notes are purely notional) or to relate the outcome of prior such exercised of agency (if the notes are literal). This may happen in a game with a pre-conceived story or plot; it may happen in some forms of sandbox; it is an important part of classic dungeoneering.

To the extent that the content of GM framing reflects the GM's conception of the situation, the point of the game, the nature of the gameworld, etc, that is the GM and not the players exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction. Again, this may or may not be related to the GM having a pre-conceived story or plot.

To the extent that the outcomes of action resolution are determined by treating prior GM authorship of (hitherto unrevealed) bits of the setting as a component of the fictional positioning, rather than using the action resolution mechanics to determine what happens in the fiction, the GM rather than the players is exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction. This may be related to the GM having a pre-conceived story or plot (". . . and then they find the map where it got lost in the kitchen, which means that . . ."); or it may be simply because the GM has made a catalogue of gameworld elements ("the study has a desk in it with empty drawers; the kitchen has a map in the breadbin, where someone accidentally dropped it; the guard is not amenable to being bribed; etc, etc").​

These techniques are often related - eg the more that the third is a feature of play, then the more likely the first will be also, as the players try to make moves that reveal the hitherto unrevealed fictional positioning. (In this thread various posters have described this as "exploring the gameworld", "acquiring information", "investigating", etc.) And one and three tend to lead to two, as they lead to the GM's ideas about the gameworld becoming a prominent aspect of play.

I don't see what is confusing about any of this.

That's the clearest statement of your position, which, again, I've understood for at least the last half of this thread, yet. The issue with understanding this is largely that you've chosen to frame it in terms that indicated that this isn't good play. This is understandable because you do not value this kind of play -- I'd hazard that you're strongly opposed to this kind of play based on your statements -- but for people who do enjoy this kind of play (which may arguably be the majority of players) note that in your phrasing and think that you're making a qualitative statement about the value of this kind of play whereas you think you're just making an obvious statement about how this kind of play functions.

And, this is a two way street for a lot of this. I'm fairly certain that you think that my statements above that you responded to are criticisms rather than attempts to clarify by being blunt on what the issues in the discussion are. And, that's entirely fair. But, it's very easy to become defensive when someone else describes your playing or posting in a manner that is blunt and critical and shows some coloring of personal opinion. I disagree with elements of your position*, and I'm sure that I haven't avoided that disagreement from coloring my posts.

*Namely that the distinction you're drawing about agency is worthwhile as the total agency of a game isn't necessarily correlated to the amount of that kind of agency. Pointing out a game has less of this kind of agency doesn't really show anything worthwhile about the playstyle that isn't already apparent in the general description of the playstyle. Also, this kind of analysis is rooted in GNS theory, which I find deeply flawed even as it does illuminate some very interesting areas of discussion. Any theory that heavily relies on GNS to make it's claims is dubious, at best, to me, even if it might still have some utility in discussion.

I find discussing Story Now games would be better served by just talking about how they play without reference to GNS theory. I find referring to GNS theory outside of an audience that already is deeply invested in it to cause confusion through the unique definitions the GNS uses and the obfuscation of concepts behind overly complicated theory-speak. Story Now games are games played in the moment, with no 'next part of the story' planned, and that focus on the desires of the characters rather than having a world the characters react to. That's an interesting hook, and a good start to discussion, but the moment you say 'narrativist' you've drug the discussion into a quagmire.

In my home game, I have 2 strongly gamist players, a gamist/simulationist, and 2 narrativist focused players. We play 5e, which is gamist/simulationist with narrativist overtones in design, and we play it with about a 50/20/30 mix of those styles. The gamist is from the combat nature of the 5e ruleset that encourage builds, acquiring correct equipment, and winning in combat as a major solution to obstacles in play, and the fact that most of my players enjoy the combat game (the 2 more narrativist focused players enjoy it, but don't require it; the gamists would leave without it). Simulationist in the exploration of the hexgrid and the process steps that enable that -- traveling duties, random encounter roles, managing survival resources, etc. Narrativist in that there's no plot, the players have their own motivations (built into the premise and character development as questions they had to answer) and the way they approach those goals are unscripted, very much like the desire to acquire an anvil that led to them investigating ruins with orc and then choosing to try to establish peaceful relations with those orcs rather than exterminate them. What happens next is dependent on how they resolve this issue and what decisions they make about their next moves to accomplish character goals. The style is largely DM centered, because 70% of the game is best served by strong DM side authority, but that leaves some room for narrativist play.

 

[Maxperson]

If I turn up to play a session of Moldvay Basic, or of the sort of D&D that Gygax describes in the "Successful Adventuring" section of his PHB, then of course the fictional situation is going to be a dungeon. That's what the game is about. And it has a lot of system elements - mechanics, methods, implicit understandings - to support play in that context.

That section of the PHB clearly says, "The most common form of ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS play is the underground adventure,". That sentence clearly shows that there are adventures outside of the dungeon such as a desert. Then the section goes on to say on page 109, "So much for the underworld adventure. Most of what was said regarding successful expeditions there also applies to outdoor and city adventures as well. Preparation and mutual aid are keys to these sorts of adventures also." The DMG also has significant portions of it devoted to outdoor adventuring, including encounter tables. It's almost as if the outdoor adventure was an important part of the game.

So no, if you show up in the sort of D&D that Gygax describes in the "Successful Adventuring" section, it won't of course be a fictional situation that is going to be in a dungeon. Most likely it will, but it can also be the desert.

If I turn up to play a game of AD&D and the GM says, "Right, you're in a desert" that's already very different from the Moldvay Basic case.

Moldvay Basic is similar. From the "Definition of Standard Terms" section. "It is the DM's job to prepare the setting for each adventure before the game begins. This setting is called a dungeon since most adventures take place in underground caverns or stone rooms beneath old ruins or castles.". Most adventures, not all adventures, so the desert could be in accordance with Moldvay Basic as well, though there is far less support for it throughout the book than 1e has.

 

[hawkeyefan]

"Having something to offer" looks like an aesthetic judgement of the sort that I hope to avoid.

GM pre-authorship of backstory used to adjudicate player action declarations (eg the attempt to bribe the guard will fail, because the GM has already establihsed in his/her notes that the guard can't be corrupted) will tend to have a certain effect on play: players will spend effort and time during the play of the game trying to learn that backstory so that they can have their PCs achieve the things that they want their PCs to achieve. The way the players learn that backstory is by making moves with their PCs that trigger the GM to tell it to them.

I don't know what you hope to analyze if you are not determining why something may be useful, or why others may prefer the thing to other options. If I want to analyze "The Godfather", I'm not going to dismiss the opinions of those who like the film. Or with those who may disagree with my opinion of the film.

Since you asked "what is worldbuilding for?" and your offered answer seems to be "solely to limit player agency in authorship as it relates to action declaration", I am trying to offer a counterpoint.

Here you seem to be endorsing the distinction I drew upthread between preparation and pre-authorship. What you describe here doesn't seem to be worldbuilding, because it doesn't establish any element of the setting, of the shared fiction

It doesn't? I would expect it to. I'm sure we can provide an example where it does not, but I think most often there would be setting elements at play in worldbuilding.

For instance, let's say that the elements the players have brought to the game with their characters lend themselves to planar adventures. Perhaps as GM I decide to use the Blood War as a backdrop for the campaign. That is a setting element.

Perhaps I as the GM come up with my own version of the Blood War, which changes the standard lore related to that concept. Or perhaps I come up with something similar, but totally new...the Exarch Wars. The elements of this story would undoubtedly affect the setting and at least some of the action in play.

OK. Upthread I had thought you, as well as some other posters, had asserted that the use of GM pre-authored backstory and setting has no implications for player agency over the content of the shared fiction. If I have confused your position with that of some other posters, I apologise.

Here is the full comment you clipped to quote me, and I think this explains things.

Yes. This is me offering an answer to your question. I don't place the same level of value that you place on player agency. I like it, and I prefer it in most instances, but I do not think it must be ubiquitous.

So you asked what is worldbuilding for.....here's something to consider. As with most things, there may need to be some consideration given in evaluating it. "Hm is this worth the loss in player agency that will result?" I think your answer is clearly "No", and that's fine.

But I don't think you wanted an echo chamber. And I don't think that your preference for another style somehow eliminates your ability to understand why a different style might appeal to other players. For me, having some predetermined elements may be worth a reduction in player agency in some ways.

I value player agency. I do not feel it needs to be ubiquitous. I also think that your definition of player agency is very specific, and that your game requires a loss of other kinds of player agency which I likely value more.

I would not say that GM Backstory has "no implications" for player agency over the content of the fiction. I simply said that it isn't a case that it must have implications. Meaning that it may be used to deny player action declarations without any kind of check, but that it doesn't have to be used that way.

I don't think that allowing the players to author elements of the fiction as part of action declaration is always a good idea. So I wouldn't always allow it. I think it's rife for abuse, especially if the players are playing as advocates of the characters....where they are doing what's best based on what they think their character would want, rather than what would make the most compelling story.

This is why I think that which game you are playing and what the expectations for play are prior to starting are such a big factor. In a game like Fiasco, the goal is specifically not for the players to have their characters succeed. But in a game like D&D, that is the case.

So to use your example of the unbribeable guard....in most instances I'd simply set up the scene and the challenge it involves. The PCs need to gain entry into the Baron's castle. So they can try and find a way to sneak in, or they can try to bribe a guard, or they can fight their way in, or whatever means they come up with. I generally don't want to limit the players in how they approach a challenge. In this sense, I leave it entirely up to them.

However, sometimes, I think it is quite useful and interesting to remove one or more means at their disposal. To take away some choice to see what they will do then. I like to put the characters into situations that are difficult....so I'll put them in a situation where they cannot win a fight....so what do they do? Sneaking in is impossible....what do you do?

Sounds just like Framing to me. Would you agree?

So in that sense, if I thought that removing the ability to bribe guards would create a compelling challenge which also made sense for the story....perhaps the PCs are on Mechanus, and they cannot bribe the Modron sentries they encounter.....then I'll do so.

I think I just approach these situations far less strictly than you. I don't tend to treat them in absolute terms such as "I will never remove any player agency".

Quite a way upthread (many hundred posts) I suggested that one thing that worldbuilding (in the sense of GM pre-authored backstory and setting) is for is to provide material for the GM to read/relate to the players. Many posters disagreed with this. But am I right in thinking that you agree? - for instance, this seems to be what you have in mind when you refer to the GM establishing a compelling story. Some of that story will come out because the players make moves that trigger the GM to relate to them pre-authored material that helps make up the story. And some of that story will come out because the GM relates elements of it in the course of framing the PCs into a situation which pertains to/expresses the GM's compelling story.

I do think that is an element. I don't think most people were disagreeing with you about that so much as how you presented it, which was rather dismissive. And when people pointed out it was dismissive, you again dismissed their concerns by saying you had no idea how it could be construed as dismissive. I also think you very much implied that it was the only thing you could see it was useful for, rather than simply one thing.

So yes, I would say that some elements of worldbuilding is the PCs taking some kind of action, which then indicates that they learn some bit of information. The thief searching the door for traps will possibly reveal the presence of a trap, which the GM will then describe and perhaps offer some further option to disarm the trap.

I would also think that this may apply to lore, and research of historical elements in the setting. Who were the combatants in the Dawn War? Who is Dendar the Night Serpent? Was Miska the Wolf Spider an ally or enemy of the Queen of Chaos? Or secrets of NPCs. Perhaps the PCs can do some schmoozing to try and find out what they can about the Baron, and they learn he has a thing for the girls at a certain brothel, and visits it once a week. Things of that nature.

What I would not advocate is the idea that GM Backstory is only this. That this information can only be used in such a way. In this sense, I don't see how it's different than the setting information chosen by the GM and/or players. If they want to play in a Greyhawk Campaign, then there are certain elements that will possibly come up in play. I don't think the choice of Greyhawk for a game is any more or less limiting than other elements that the GM may have determined in advance. Especially in the instance when the GM has taken the players' wants and choices and incorporated them into what he has in mind.

It also, to me, seems to serve largely the same purpose as your Framing. If Framing is the GM taking elements of the setting based on the characters' stated goals and players' areas of interest, and creating a scene that requires a choice.....I really don't see how, in this regard, its purpose is so different from GM Backstory.

Again....perhaps you do not like the technique because, as with any, it can be used poorly, and to you the risk is not worth the reward. But I don't think it's unclear what it may offer.

So I'll ask again....do you think there is any purpose for it other than your initial assessment? Has your mind changed at all over the course of this thread?