What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ovinomancer]

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.



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.



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


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".



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?

Firstly, I agree with and appreciate a lot that's in this post.

That said, there's terminology that's been invoked in recent discussion that is easily confusable. Backstory, in the context that Eero uses it, is framing -- it's the parts that form the backdrop of the scene, the backstory that enables the current story to unfold. This setting, everything that's happened, location, immediate events, etc. This kind of backstory in Story Now games is always given to the players explicitly in play. This shouldn't be confused with the [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]ian constructs of secret backstory, which are true things that the players don't know about during play, that may surface in action resolution steps to affect or cause an action to fail (strangely, there's no mention of those things that cause automatic success as issues... maybe a different post). The Backstory (capital intended) is Forge speak for the set of information that frames a scene. Shared narration would give players the ability to narrate some of this Backstory in play, thus changing the scene. As you note, this has Czege Principle issues if the primary motivation of player is character advocacy.

I point this out as it's a likely point of confusion as to which kind of backstory or Backstory is being discussed and in what framing. Again, the only time Forge speak increases understanding is when everyone in the conversation is already proficient in Forge speak.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Firstly, I agree with and appreciate a lot that's in this post.

That said, there's terminology that's been invoked in recent discussion that is easily confusable. Backstory, in the context that Eero uses it, is framing -- it's the parts that form the backdrop of the scene, the backstory that enables the current story to unfold. This setting, everything that's happened, location, immediate events, etc. This kind of backstory in Story Now games is always given to the players explicitly in play. This shouldn't be confused with the [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]ian constructs of secret backstory, which are true things that the players don't know about during play, that may surface in action resolution steps to affect or cause an action to fail (strangely, there's no mention of those things that cause automatic success as issues... maybe a different post). The Backstory (capital intended) is Forge speak for the set of information that frames a scene. Shared narration would give players the ability to narrate some of this Backstory in play, thus changing the scene. As you note, this has Czege Principle issues if the primary motivation of player is character advocacy.

I point this out as it's a likely point of confusion as to which kind of backstory or Backstory is being discussed and in what framing. Again, the only time Forge speak increases understanding is when everyone in the conversation is already proficient in Forge speak.

Yes, I think this is one of the main areas of confusion. I admit to not being very knowledgeable about Forge terms...mostly because I wasn't really involved in online discussion when the Forge was still around, but also because I tend to prefer a more conversational discussion than a technical one.

I get the distinction you are making between Backstory and backstory. I'm going to take your comments as a starting point to kind of toss some ideas out there. I'm interested to know what you think.

So the Framing of a scene draws on the Backstory....known to the players...in order to set up some kind of conflict or situation that demands that they act. In that sense, Framing is the establishment of factors that dictate the players' options. Do you think that's accurate?

To me, I think this can also be the purpose of little b backstory, where perhaps the players don't know. So to use the bribe-ability of guards as an example....is it really that different to openly Frame a scene and explain that guards cannot be bribed, than it is to not state that openly and let the players discover it only through attempts to bribe or to find out if it's possible?

Both limit what is available to the player. The only real distinction to me is that in the second example, the player "wastes a turn" finding out the guards can't be bribed. Is that the point of concern? Doesn't the GM's Framing potentially have just as much impact that secret backstory may have on action declaration? Aren't the players prevented from having their characters bribe the guards either way? So one limit on agency happens up front and openly, and the other is only discovered through play....would that be the primary difference?

In this sense, couldn't it almost be argued that player agency is even more limited by Framing? Because depending on how the GM Frames things, the players may not even consider certain actions, whether or not they have a chance to succeed.

To apply this more specifically to Permerton's concern about player authorship of fiction through action declaration....the Framing certainly seems to remove the ability of the players to author things into the fiction. Anything that contradicts the GM's framing is off the table. Which is fine....I think most people would accept this with no question....but I just don't see it as being all that different.

Just some thoughts about it all.....generally, my idea of player agency is different than the specific use Permerton has assigned to it in regard to authorship ability....but I still see limitations however you look at it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, I think this is one of the main areas of confusion. I admit to not being very knowledgeable about Forge terms...mostly because I wasn't really involved in online discussion when the Forge was still around, but also because I tend to prefer a more conversational discussion than a technical one.

I get the distinction you are making between Backstory and backstory. I'm going to take your comments as a starting point to kind of toss some ideas out there. I'm interested to know what you think.

So the Framing of a scene draws on the Backstory....known to the players...in order to set up some kind of conflict or situation that demands that they act. In that sense, Framing is the establishment of factors that dictate the players' options. Do you think that's accurate?

Just to clarify, Backstory in Story Now games is always apparent to the players (or should be). Backstory applied to, say, D&D, includes a bunch of things that might be hidden.

That said, yes, I agree.

To me, I think this can also be the purpose of little b backstory, where perhaps the players don't know. So to use the bribe-ability of guards as an example....is it really that different to openly Frame a scene and explain that guards cannot be bribed, than it is to not state that openly and let the players discover it only through attempts to bribe or to find out if it's possible?

Both limit what is available to the player. The only real distinction to me is that in the second example, the player "wastes a turn" finding out the guards can't be bribed. Is that the point of concern? Doesn't the GM's Framing potentially have just as much impact that secret backstory may have on action declaration? Aren't the players prevented from having their characters bribe the guards either way? So one limit on agency happens up front and openly, and the other is only discovered through play....would that be the primary difference?

In this sense, couldn't it almost be argued that player agency is even more limited by Framing? Because depending on how the GM Frames things, the players may not even consider certain actions, whether or not they have a chance to succeed.

To apply this more specifically to Permerton's concern about player authorship of fiction through action declaration....the Framing certainly seems to remove the ability of the players to author things into the fiction. Anything that contradicts the GM's framing is off the table. Which is fine....I think most people would accept this with no question....but I just don't see it as being all that different.

Just some thoughts about it all.....generally, my idea of player agency is different than the specific use Permerton has assigned to it in regard to authorship ability....but I still see limitations however you look at it.

I agree. The method of framing that Story Now uses forces choices of the DM's devising on the players. But, then, so does more traditional play, just in a slower exposition. The fight will still be with those orcs regardless of style. What I think limits agency in Story Now is the necessity to move to crisis -- play will focus around crisis points entirely, and players cannot avoid or mitigate these crises prior to their introduction into play, they can only aim for a different kind of crisis. Again, as I said prior to this, I don't think this is a problem, because the agency lost isn't agency the players care about. What they care about is maximizing the agency in a narrativist way -- ie, playing through with the only focus on the immediate story, with only past story as a restriction (NO future story AT ALL), and addressing issues of human concern. That last bit, thought, I'll admit is still a bit too vague for use for me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But player agency doesn’t mean they have full control of everything. Whether the discovery was pre-authored or not doesn’t really have anything to do with player agency. The players are not being restricted in their choices or actions. Just like I can go get in my car and go left or right. My free will has not been altered. If I come to a red light it still hasn’t altered my free will or agency, it’s just a circumstance that provides a decision point.

It’s not a choose your own adventure because the outcome has not been predetermined. That there is something in the room may have been, but what the characters choose to do, and the results of that decision is not predetermined. Choose your own adventure books produce the same result every time you select option 1. A published adventure is like a DM prepped adventure. I’ve run Keep on the Borderlands and Tomb of Horrors dozens of times, and never had the same results, ever. Each group had their own experiences and results.

Now @pemerton may prefer a game where the players have a greater ability to author beyond the actions and decisions of their characters, and that’s fine. But that doesn’t mean the players have more agency, just a broader part of the authoring of the story.

Removing player agency would be pretermining the outcome of an encounter, not the content of the world. Such as deciding that the result of this encounter will be that the PCs will be captured. That decision can be predetermined or made on the fly.

Note that this does not mean the characters can never be captured.

Taking away agency: the DM decides that the characters must be captured. Initially he throws 8 well armed guards, but that doesn’t deter them. So he brings in 12 reinforcements. That still doesn’t stop them, so he brings in a wizard with a wand of hold person.

Not taking away player agency (and tying into world-building): the kingdom is in the midst of a war, and bandits have been an increasing problem in the area. The Lord has ordered an increased patrol of 12 men-at-arms, 6 of them mounted, with a wizard with a wand of hold person. The PCs run afoul of the law, and find themselves surrounded by one such patrol. Due to the heightened security, escape may be risky, since it will make them outlaws, putting a bounty on their heads, dead or alive.

Their agency hasn’t been altered, because they are still able to make any decision they want, although some are more risky than others. Even if they aren’t aware of the current political situation, that will become apparent in time.

The important thing to understand is that in this situation the player’s agency has not been compromised, although the character’s may have been.

The framework of the game, including the house or table rules, determines what the players are allowed to do or not. This is not altering agency, it is just the rules of the game. Some games have more restrictions than others.

For example, the rules for high school football are different that the NFL. That’s not taking anything away from the players. They still have the same goals, and they are free to accomplish those in any manner within the framework of the rules. How they meet those goals might be altered, but within the framework of the game they still have their agency.
@Maxperson’s preferred approach is not “choose your own adventure” nor is it impacting player agency within the context of the game they are playing. It’s a different game than @pemerton’s, with different rules and approaches, that’s all.

We're still talking about different things. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has stated it pretty explicitly a few times, "agency over the issues they engage within the game" to paraphrase. As with my 'spherical cow' above, the endless maze, if the only choice is left to face orcs and right to face undead, that's SOME agency over the activity of the characters, but it is a SMALL agency because it only allows choices with the absolute bounds of what the GM proposed. A player cannot say here "I try to find the secret passage which leads to the land of the Yuan Ti, my character is obsessed with finding them."

 

[pemerton]

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.

This isn't quite what Edwards, Eero Tuovinen or most of those who describe their RPGing as "story now" have in mind. Eg the "current adventure", including any combat, is the story - not an alternative to it.

I agree that in GM-driven games a lot of the "story" and character development takes place in PC-to-PC interaction. Imagine having that permeate the whole game, and you start to get closer to "story now" RPGing.

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)

There may be non-accidental correlation here.

It's not as if there is any genre reason why exploration should prioritise combat over social interaction (eg consider the bits of the LotR that take place in Rohan, or the REH Conan story People of the Black Circle).

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.

Yes. I posted about this something like 800+ posts upthread, and intermittently since. One way I have made the point is by contrasting between what is literally, and what is notionally, in the GM's notes.

Triggering the GM to tell you stuff as if it was in his/her notes, although it is actually made up on the spot, is not an exercise of player agency over the content of the shared fiction. Triggering the GM to tell you stuff can affirm such agency if the GM is making that stuff up by reference to and/or incorporation of player-established theme and content (as per the "standard narrativistic model").

As far as the contrast between combat and non-combat resolution in D&D (with 4e skill challenges, and some aspects of dungeon exploration in classic D&D, as exceptions): it is pretty marked. There is no analogue to hit points, and the resulting finality of resolution, in (eg) 5e D&D's system for ability/skill checks.

 

[pemerton]

This is a definition of agency, though

<snip>

you've defined agency for the purposes of your discussion as relating to the content of the shared fiction ONLY

I don't understand your point. I haven't defined agency. I have made it clear what I'm talking about. If you want to talk about something else, go right ahead. That doesn't have any bearing on what I'm saying about my topic, though, does it?

Eero doesn't talk about agency at all in his blog posts.

He doesn't have to - he expressly states that he's discussing an approach to play - narrativism - which has been analysed in detail on The Forge: "I won’t explain what narrativism (Story Now) is here; if you don’t know, find out."

And he identifies some games as exemplars of what he's talking about: "Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, some varieties of Heroquest, The Shadow of Yesterday, Mountain Witch, Primetime Adventures and more games than I care to name".

I've just been reading DitV (which Vincent Baker himself identifies as owing a great design debt to Sorcerer) - it's all about player agency and player-driven play, with many admonitions from Baker to that effect throughout the rulebook. And it's representative, not distinctive, in this respect.

Forge-speak is opaque at best.

<snip>

I find discussing Story Now games would be better served by just talking about how they play without reference to GNS theory.

I quoted Ron Edwards only because you were arguing Eero Tuovinen says something different from what I said that he says, and you mentioned GNS in the course of that!

And, speaking of Eero and how you define agency, it would appear many of the things I've said about the different kinds of agency and how their achieved by the different playstyles lines up with some of Eero's thoughts. At least, in GNS theory, DM-facing play appears more gamist, and scratches gamist itches that narrativist play cannot, while narrativist play cannot scratch gamist itches. Not that I'm a big fan of GNS theory, but it has some uses

If you aren't interested in talking about things through a GNS perspective, why raise it?

But anyway, it's a bit weird to have someone explaining something to me that I'm extremely familiar with, and actually put to work in RPGing on a pretty regular basis.

What this is saying in simpler terms is that play focuses on the immediate scene only

<snip>

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.

Not really.

Ewards is not saying that play focused on the immediate scene only - eg many systems that are typically played in a "story now" fashion (I'm thinking Dogs in the Vineyard, HeroWars/Quest and Burning Wheel, for instance) incorporate rules for relationships, which establish mechanical links between present events and past bits of backstory.

And consider Vincent Baker's advice from DitV - "Escalate, ecalate, escalate!" Escalation frequently means taking up some concern or outcome from prior events and pushing it harder, stepping up the pressure, forcing the player to ask "Do I still agree with what I did then?" In my main 4e game, one important element of escalation is around the role of the Raven Queen, and the PCs' ongoing sequence of decisions that confer upon her more and more power. This is not a focus on the immediate scene only.

And DitV is all abour the PCs travelling from town to town and reacting to what the characters encounter there. My 4e game has a cosmological situation that the PCs react to. "Story now" games can have plenty of setting.

As Ron Edwards says, "story now" means that, right now, we are - through our play - establishing and thereby experiencing something which is recognisably story in the literary sense: there are protagonists, who have dramatic needs (the "issue" or "problematic feature of human existence") which are put to the test; there is rising action, climax and some sort of resolution.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. I posted about this something like 800+ posts upthread, and intermittently since. One way I have made the point is by contrasting between what is literally, and what is notionally, in the GM's notes.

Triggering the GM to tell you stuff as if it was in his/her notes, although it is actually made up on the spot, is not an exercise of player agency over the content of the shared fiction. Triggering the GM to tell you stuff can affirm such agency if the GM is making that stuff up by reference to and/or incorporation of player-established theme and content (as per the "standard narrativistic model").

Your style:

1. Player says or does something that triggers your response to author information to give to the PCs, thereby causing a change in the fiction.

My style:

1. Player says or does something that triggers my response to author information to give to the PC, thereby causing a change in the fiction.

In both cases it's the player causing the change in the fiction via the DM's response. The only reason the content changes is because of the player's decision.

As far as the contrast between combat and non-combat resolution in D&D (with 4e skill challenges, and some aspects of dungeon exploration in classic D&D, as exceptions): it is pretty marked. There is no analogue to hit points, and the resulting finality of resolution, in (eg) 5e D&D's system for ability/skill checks.

So it's okay to pre-author something and somehow isn't a form of control so long as it has no analogue elsewhere. Got it.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Upthread, you said "Why can't the GM have an idea in his mind ahead of time, with some ideas about what can or may happen, but not committing to anything until the players have interacted with the idea?" I responded to this, saying that this is not an account of the GM establishing any setting element. The GM does not commmit to anything until the players have interacted with the idea.

If the GM has established a setting element, then s/he is already committed to something. Conversely, if s/he's not committed it follows that nothing is yet established. S/he just has an idea.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "abuse" here. But anyway, as I have said many times upthread already, the games the I GM are not ones in which players are per se empowered to author elements of the fiction as part of action declaration. They are no different from D&D in this respect. The players are not considering "what would make the most compelling story" - they are just playing their PCs. (Eero Tuovinen talks about this at some length in the blog I've linked to several times in this thread.)

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?

If you like. What do you think is at stake in labelling it "framing"?

For myself, I'm generally interested in the players' choice of means for their PC expressing something about their conception of the situation, and what is important in respect of it, rather than reflecting some choice I made as GM to pose some sort of puzzle. So when I frame a situation, I am trying to "go where the action is" so as to provoke some response driven by dramatic need.

The method of framing that Story Now uses forces choices of the DM's devising on the players.

Huh?

The PCs arrive in town. They want to befriend the baron. They also learn that the baron's advisor is, in fact (but unknown to the townsfolk or the baron) the leader of the hobgoblins who are assaulting the town, whom they've been pursuing for some time.

The situation puts pressure on the players - it may be hard for the PCs to befriend the baron while also meting out justice to his advisor - but what choice of the GM's devising is being forced on the players? They can choose as they think is appropriate.

So the Framing of a scene draws on the Backstory....known to the players...in order to set up some kind of conflict or situation that demands that they act. In that sense, Framing is the establishment of factors that dictate the players' options. Do you think that's accurate?

No.

The framing is the establishment of some shared fiction, which speaks to the PCs' dramatic needs. It doesn't dictate options.

The players learning that it will be hard for the PCs both to befriend the baron and deal with the leader of the hobgoblins doesn't dictate their options. It does establish a context for making choices that will tell us something about these protagonists.

To me, I think this can also be the purpose of little b backstory, where perhaps the players don't know. So to use the bribe-ability of guards as an example....is it really that different to openly Frame a scene and explain that guards cannot be bribed, than it is to not state that openly and let the players discover it only through attempts to bribe or to find out if it's possible?

Both limit what is available to the player. The only real distinction to me is that in the second example, the player "wastes a turn" finding out the guards can't be bribed. Is that the point of concern? Doesn't the GM's Framing potentially have just as much impact that secret backstory may have on action declaration? Aren't the players prevented from having their characters bribe the guards either way? So one limit on agency happens up front and openly, and the other is only discovered through play....would that be the primary difference?

I don't know of any RPG that would be run the way you describe. I don't know of any RPG that suggests that the GM's job is to (i) frame the situation, and then (ii) tell the players what their PCs are or are not allowed to do in trying to engage and/or resolve the situation. Do you have one in mind?

In every RPG I'm familiar with that has social resolution mechanics, the way we find out whether or not a guard can be bribed is by seeing how the social resolution unfolds.

couldn't it almost be argued that player agency is even more limited by Framing? Because depending on how the GM Frames things, the players may not even consider certain actions, whether or not they have a chance to succeed.

<snip>

the Framing certainly seems to remove the ability of the players to author things into the fiction. Anything that contradicts the GM's framing is off the table.

I don't know what limits you have in mind. Or what actions you are worried will or won't be considered. Do you have a concrete example in mind?

As for the bit about the ability of the players to author things into the fiction - I will repeat again that the games I GM generally do not involve player fiat authorship, and in my view that this is largely a red herring as far as player agency in respect of the shared fiction is concerned.

"Is there a vessel in the room that would allow me to catch the mage's blood?" isn't "authoring things into the fiction." It's just an action declaration.

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.

I feel I have posted many response to this upthread. Apparently they haven't been clear or helpful. Here is something from Vicent Baker in DitV (pp 138-39):

Actively reveal the town in play
The town you’ve made has secrets. It has, quite likely, terrible secrets — blood and sex and murder and damnation.

But you the GM, you don’t have secrets a’tall. Instead, you have cool things — bloody, sexy, murderous, damned cool things — that you can’t wait to share.

The PCs arrive in town. I have someone meet them. They ask how things are going. The person says that, well, things are going okay, mostly. The PCs say, “mostly?" . . .

So instead of having the NPC say “oh no, I meant that things are going just fine, and I shut up now,” I have the NPC launch into his or her tirade. “Things are awful! This person’s sleeping with this other person not with me, they murdered the schoolteacher, blood pours down the meeting house walls every night!”

...Or sometimes, the NPC wants to lie, instead. That’s okay! I have the NPC lie. You’ve watched movies. You always can tell when you’re watching a movie who’s lying and who’s telling the truth. And wouldn’t you know it, most the time the players are looking at me with skeptical looks, and I give them a little sly nod that yep, she’s lying. And they get these great, mean, tooth-showing grins — because when someone lies to them, ho boy does it not work out.

Then the game goes somewhere.​

In a game GMed in that fashion, relatively little time is spent making and resolving moves whose main function is to get the GM to relate his/her fiction.

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.

People disagreed. And denied.

The only "dismissive" thing was to actually say it.

That's why I am trying to analyse rather than make aesthetic judgements. Because the analysis itself takes many posts. It's taken 1000+ posts to get some consensus that one thing that worldbuillding is for is to establish material that the GM will relate to the players when they make certain moves that trigger that.

Until these sorts of literal descriptions of what happens in play are established, how can we possibly talk about what the aesthetic rationales might be?

 

[Ovinomancer]

We're still talking about different things. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has stated it pretty explicitly a few times, "agency over the issues they engage within the game" to paraphrase.

This is an even worse paraphrase that adds even more confusion to the bits we've managed to sort out. This definition, as written, applies to many styles of DM0-facing games if taken at face value. For this to mean what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] means, there's a huge host of unspoken assumptions that have to go along with it.

As with my 'spherical cow' above, the endless maze, if the only choice is left to face orcs and right to face undead, that's SOME agency over the activity of the characters, but it is a SMALL agency because it only allows choices with the absolute bounds of what the GM proposed. A player cannot say here "I try to find the secret passage which leads to the land of the Yuan Ti, my character is obsessed with finding them."

Again, not a very good comparision because the assumptions of play between your spherical cow and the following declaration do not align. The problem here isn't the spherical cow and what that entails in limited choice (mazes automatically limit choices) but that the assumptions of play are not aligned.

Secondly, that declaration is treading close to the Czege Principle of the player writing their own solution to their own problems (I want to find X, so I'll declare Y action that will directly lead to me finding X. Even if there's a mechanical check on this declaration, a success leads to immediate satisfaction of the player defined objectives.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't understand your point. I haven't defined agency. I have made it clear what I'm talking about. If you want to talk about something else, go right ahead. That doesn't have any bearing on what I'm saying about my topic, though, does it?

Sigh. Yes, you have, for the purposes of the discussion in this thread you've defined agency as that agency that relates to input into the shared fiction. That's a definition. This isn't a trap, or an accusation, or a bad thing, it's pointing out that you have a very precise meaning when you say "agency" in this discussion, and that "agency" is defined, by you, in this manner for this discussion.

I'm honestly baffled that you are 1) opposing this and 2) actually think that you haven't established a specific definition of agency for the purposes of your analysis.

Although, I'll note that you oppose any argument from some posters, regardless of what they say. This entire post is you finding reasons to disagree with me despite me saying pretty much exactly what you've been saying.

He doesn't have to - he expressly states that he's discussing an approach to play - narrativism - which has been analysed in detail on The Forge: "I won’t explain what narrativism (Story Now) is here; if you don’t know, find out."

And he identifies some games as exemplars of what he's talking about: "Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, some varieties of Heroquest, The Shadow of Yesterday, Mountain Witch, Primetime Adventures and more games than I care to name".

Search for the word 'agency' on Eero's blog. The only returns are when agency is part of the name of a game he's discussing. Search on google for the word agency+Eero (use his full name, of course). The returns are when he's commenting on a discussion where some other poster uses agency. Eero does not establish agency as something he uses to discuss game design. Instead he uses much more tailored and specific points to discuss options open to players. I believe this is because Eero is keen on being as precise as possible and agency is often very imprecise in these discussion. This is why you've chosen to tightly define agency for the purposes of your analysis -- the general term agency is to vague and undefinable to be used for good analysis.

As for Eero borrowing from the Forge and thus importing agency indirectly, I'm having trouble finding defintions of the standard narrativistic model, much less one that defines the model using 'agency'.

Ron Edward's Narrativism: Story Now post doesn't use agency anywhere in the seminal definition of Story Now style. Check for yourself.

I've just been reading DitV (which Vincent Baker himself identifies as owing a great design debt to Sorcerer) - it's all about player agency and player-driven play, with many admonitions from Baker to that effect throughout the rulebook. And it's representative, not distinctive, in this respect.

Sure, I don't have access to the text of DitV, so I can't follow along with what Baker is saying there. I've had trouble locating strong discussions of agency on Baker's blog, though, so I can't source this through other means.

I quoted Ron Edwards only because you were arguing Eero Tuovinen says something different from what I said that he says, and you mentioned GNS in the course of that!

You brought up Edwards (and Eero) yourself without prompting in early posts in this thread. However, given Story Now is deeply tied to GNS theory

​

Again, you've brought Ron up long before the recent posts.

If you aren't interested in talking about things through a GNS perspective, why raise it?
But anyway, it's a bit weird to have someone explaining something to me that I'm extremely familiar with, and actually put to work in RPGing on a pretty regular basis.

I didn't -- you're the one citing things based on GNS perspective. It's hard to discuss those cites accurately without an understanding of why they think that way. And, many people who are not familiar with GNS theories are reading and commenting on posts we make quoting each other, so my explanations are for two reasons: 1) to verify we're talking about the same things and 2) make that discussion understandable to others.

Again, you're the one that keeps quoting outside cites that use GNS terminology or the Standard Narrativist Model, which is written by Ron Edwards based on his GNS theories. Discussing that things you cite requires a grasp of the theory it's based on. You could have chosen to make those arguments in clear terms, but instead chose to offload that explanation onto your cites which are steeped in GNS theory and term usages. Eero adds another layer as he has a few terms he's defined and uses that aren't GNS but are very specific.

So, I'm explaining it to other people reading what I'm saying to you.

Not really.

Yes, really. Nothing I said there implies that previous story isn't incorporated, and I've said in other posts exactly this.

However, since that was the only thing that you cut out of five paragraphs talking about the central issue in discussion, I must assume that you agree with what you snipped and only had this one point of contention in what I said.