What is *worldbuilding* for?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Fair point, but I still say it's incumbent on the DM to at least mention that those intersections exist and thus give the players/PCs a choice on whether to do anything differently given this new information. (e.g. maybe one of these intersections provides a safer path to where we're going...we'll never know if we don't explore...)
But passes the definition of railroad if the definition includes undue reduction or elimination of player/PC choices or options, which IMO it does.

But you still aren't grasping the fundamental point. There are no 'intersections'. What makes you insist that there must be these fascinating side alleys to the story that are so compelling that not inventing them all the time is taking away people's choice to..... follow the story line they helped invent and continue to show interest in!?

I mean, how many 'intersections' per scene is the GM obliged to present before the game transitions to 'not a railroad' by your theory? Why must there be some special number of details that must exist in the world which are unrelated to anything the players have asked about? It just seems like a completely arbitrary standard that you have developed, which could apply to ANY game using ANY techniques, and then you've decided by some process which I admit I find impenetrable, to assign it as a principle attribute of one style of play.

Honestly, I'm mystified. I mean, in my games there's obviously some sort of understood 'backdrop' that usually provides color and mood. So maybe if you go to the slum you see people are poor and living in shacks and suffering, but if you're there to make a deal with Vim the Weasel, notorious tiefling fence, that stuff is really not specifically relevant. It was invented by the GM to paint a scene. Now, its established as fact, and maybe later the player could use that information. If one of the PCs decides to talk to the beggars on the corner, then so be it, but I'm not going to constantly describe every alley and every beggar and every shack every time the PCs happen to cross through that part of town going from hither to yon. I'm not depriving anyone of anything. I'm just getting on with the game. Its, IMHO, ridiculous to imagine it as a total stream-of-consciousness play where no detail is ever left out.

I mean, the logical place for the bad guys to jump you is the crapper, but do we constantly describe and discuss and deal with all the bodily function activity of the PCs? No, and by convention it almost never plays a part in anything, its just not that interesting or heroic. Frankly, the world rarely has the level of detail which provides the location of all the privvies.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But they still have 100% player agency in both scenarios. What that agency allows them to do is different, and that's my point. The "issues they engage within the game" is dependent upon the rules of the game.

Yes, which is my point, qualitatively different things are different things. When someone says that there's 'just as much agency' in one game as the other, they're trying to argue that 2 different things should be called the same thing. That isn't useful analysis, in fact its obfuscatory.

And nobody is arguing that all games are the same or need be the same.

In your spherical cow example, the player can say "I try to find the secret passage which leads to the land of the Yuan Ti, my character is obsessed with finding them." That doesn't mean he'll find it, though.

Of course, if we explore that a bit farther, the answer might be no because:

1. There isn't one (as pre-determined by the DM);

The GM-centered game answer, player has no agency over the fiction here.

2. There isn't one (as determined by a die roll); or

Which is only really compatible with some sort of player fiction agency, since presumably there's a possible positive result where such a thing does exist.

3. There isn't one (as determined by the DM on the spot)

Why is this different in any real material sense than #1?

4. There isn't one (as determined by the player deciding that there shouldn't be one there).

I would expect that the possibility wouldn't even have come up then, in which case we can assume that in the player centered type of Story Now game this implies the player is already suitably engaged, or wants something else. In either case the GM wouldn't introduce such a secret door here, and shouldn't.

Those are all different mechanical rule approaches but the result is the same.

I see fundamentally 2 approaches here.

1) The GM is in absolute control over what elements can be added to the fiction, a secret door (or anything else) only exists when he says it does.

2) The player is able to suggest or add elements to the fiction, or change the fictional positioning, in ways that are beyond or aside from what the character could do. This is usually a result of spending some resource and/or making some kind of check, but the exact details depend on the system in question.

Player agency itself isn't any different for any of them. They still have full control over the parts of the game that the rules allow. However, they allow different levels of control of the fiction outside of their characters.

Yes, it is, as I've just explained above

#1 doesn't impact player agency, because in that system of rules, the player doesn't have the ability to influence the placement of a secret door. The DM could impact player agency by lying, even though he had placed a secret door there.

You aren't even having a discussion at the same level then. We're not talking about a specific set of rules. This isn't a discussion about player agency in B/X Molday (to pick a 'classic' ruleset). This point #1 you have brought up is only meaningful in relation to other possible ways to play, if you only compare a play technique to itself and then declare that it doesn't do anything different than its own self, this is what I would call a 'tautology' and kind of a waste of column inches!

#2 doesn't impact player agency, but it does allow for the placement of such a secret door with a successful die roll. Note that the DM could affect the player's agency through modifiers.

Of course it impacts player agency, WRT #1 massively. The player now has an entire capability to express influence over the content of the fiction! To make this statement as you do seems literally nonsensical to me! Its like saying "here we have this orange, but its just an apple!" in direct contravention of what is readily apparent right on the face of the thing!

#3 doesn't inherently impact player agency, since the rules allow the DM to decide whether a secret door is present or not. But there is certainly room for abuse, depending on how the rules.

Again, this is just #1, and the same comment applies. The 'room for abuse' comment is not really relevant to this particular discussion (though it might bear discussion in the larger context of the whole thread).

#4 is the only option that puts the player fully in control of the decision, by the rules. The DM might be able to impact player agency by overruling it, but if the rules give the player this capability, that's probably not an easy option for the DM.

Again, this isn't coherent or meaningful. Why would the player be checking for a secret door he has no interest in finding? What relationship to player agency would finding things he's not interested in have? There's nothing to this point at all.

Of course, many might indicate that it is within the rights of the DM to overrule any of these, and it was explicitly stated in the AD&D DMG, but most would agree that this is wrong and takes away the player's agency.

Well, now I'm not understanding what you're saying. You SEEM to have claimed that there's no issue of player agency at all with #1 and #2 and that somehow they are the same, but they are in fact the 2 possibilities of a binary choice, the GM determines all fiction, or the GM doesn't determine all fiction. Here you seem to be speaking as if you fully understand that, yet you dismissed it a moment ago! If the player's ability to add to the fiction does not represent a field of player agency which does not exist if the GM disallows it, then how can the GM possibly take away player agency?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But even in a system with this definition of "player agency" they don't always find the secret passage. Even if the player is the one declaring the fiction at that point in time, the dice can indicate failure, although most of them espouse the type of "fail forward" of success with complications. But if the circumstances and dice align, then the result could very well be one of failure, and in other discussions, proponents of these systems have indicated that actual failure is possible.

Regardless, my point isn't whether the passage is found or not. It's how the game determines if the passage is found (or even there).

The GM vs Player driven game is another confusing mess. To some folks, it's a game where the DM doesn't add anything during the course of play. They use a published adventure or the DM preps it ahead of time (and can even show his notes if there's a dispute), and any modifications the DM makes in the course of the game is taking away their player agency. But the players don't add to the fiction of the world, just take actions as their characters. That's not the type of GM driven game you're referring to, though.

What you're referring to is more a question of how much input the players have into the fiction of the world. In many Story Now games they have a fair amount of it, although Eero's essay advised against them having control of the fiction during the course of play. In D&D I think that there's always an aspect of players adding to the fiction outside of their characters, although it's usually more indirectly. Through backstory and if the DM works their ideas into the game. That's what I do, although they also have more direct input at times as well. For example, during the course of play, when we are in town (their home town) then I ask for their input as to what they know. For example, when meeting an NPC from town, they fill in what they know about that NPC, what their relationship is, etc. In general, regarding lore about the region, etc. we handle things similarly.

Really, I see it more as a continuum, of how much input into the fiction outside of the characters the players have, and how much input/veto the DM has with regards to that input. Most of my players don't want any input into the fiction beyond their characters and their decisions and actions. They are looking to me to fill in what's going on in the world around them. I tend to have some notes for ideas, but most things aren't finalized until they enter play, and may be the opposite, or even completely different from what I have. Of course, a significant portion isn't prepped at all, since I really don't know what the players are going to do. A lot of the plot hooks are based directly on what the players have said along the way.l

So in a "GM driven game" I don't think that the existence of the passage is always a foregone conclusion, although it could be. In some games it may always be. Instead, I see it more as a matter of responsibility. Who is responsible for determining if the passage exists or not? In D&D it's usually the DM, sometimes with the use of dice. In a Story Now approach, the dice can be an influence, and the responsibility lies with whoever's move it is, with potential complications introduced by the GM.

I agree with you, there's a spectrum. There are also various approaches that are more or less direct.

For example: In DW (I assume PbtA in general) there are moves like 'Spout Lore' and 'Discern Realities' which a player can take. These moves oblige the GM to describe some new element of fiction, and put some thematic focus on what it is by virtue of the circumstances under which the player makes the move (IE he might pick up a book and 'Spout Lore' about it, if he rolls 7+ the GM is going to have to make up some lore about that book). Usually the character will have a specific goal in mind in using these moves. Its POSSIBLE for the GM to kind of ignore that, but its not really how it is supposed to work. At the very least successful uses of these moves are supposed to give the player USEFUL information.

Thus in DW the players don't really have an explicit mechanism to add new fiction THEMSELVES, but they can 'commission' it at practically any time. It may also be possible for a player to introduce something on a success in other types of moves, but generally DW reserves this to the GM. I think there are a few other moves where the player gets some leeway here, ones that let him describe something for instance.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How are the chances set? Not by the player, as best I can tell. You are deciding whether or not to say no. You are setting the chance. The player is just waiting to be told.

I think what he's trying to say is that he's rolling to decide if something the PLAYER was interested in exists. What if he handed the %dice to the player and said 'roll, on a 62 or higher there is a secret door', I think that would be representative of player agency. I don't think the GM tossing the dice takes that way. So here he probably IS describing something we would consider player input into the fiction (and agency over it in some measure).

When you or @Lanefan tell the players that their PCs are at an intersection, or stumble on a raised flagstone, or whatever else is part of you "neutral" framing, all you are doing is choosing (as a GM) to make some details salient. When I tell the player that his PC is at a bazaar where a peddler has an angel feather for sale, I am also choosing (as a GM) to make some details salient. The difference is that you have chosen something that you think is interesting/engaging; whereas I have chosen something that (given the player's signals) I know the player will find engaging/interesting.

You are choosing whether or not to mention a raised flagstone. Whether or not to mention an intersection. Whether or not to mention a bazaar. Both of us are choosing what to mention to the players.

It's just that I'm choosing on the basis of the evinced dramatic needs of the PCs.

"Stopping at the intersection" isn't a rational world, any more than is one which mentions every flagstone on the floor of the tavern, and every splinter on its wooden stairs. It's just one where the GM is indulging some taste for that particular detail.

I can tell you that if my players want intersections, or flagstone, they're very capable of letting me know!

This is just the same point. You think not mentioning the flagstone is not railroading. Why not? You're depriving your players of the chance to study them, assay them, excavate them, fireball them, etc.

But obviously that's ridiculous. These aren't real worlds. They have no objective existence, waiting to be explored. They're fictions, which the players encounter because the GMs tell them to them. Telling the players stuff that they have signalled will be interesting to them is not depriving choices anymore than telling them "neutral" stuff. It's just (in my experience) more exciting!

There is a somewhat tangential question here, which actually takes us to an important point about your original question. IF as a GM I fully detail EVERYTHING before play, that is every salient detail of everything which I will ever describe, at least to first order, AND I do so without any respect for any consideration of player interest, proclivities, what character they happen to play, etc. then I'm, in a sense, making a pre-determination of what level of detail the game will focus on and be played at.

This, IMHO, is actually a reason why content is pre-authored, and some GMs favor creating a 'sandbox'. That is they're basically saying "I don't want to have to decide when something is or isn't interesting to you, I'm going to just make a list of ALL the things that are interesting to me, and you can assume anything I describe unprompted when you examine a situation, etc. is 'my stuff'. If you want to talk about 'your stuff' (whatever that is) then go dig around, we'll invent some thing you uncover that will be perhaps more 'up your alley' (because you want to explore dungeons and you pried open doors leading underground or something).

I'm not saying that makes a game 'player driven' in either of our definitions, but it has some power to explain what GMs are after when they generate this kind of content.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not on the feather - I've already blown that one. But the opal at the jewel merchant? The ceremonial sword at the merchant of fine things? The book of prophesy at the bookseller's?

Yeah, I can keep thinking these up all day.

Even you understand that this is silly, with the smiley at the end of it, lol. Obviously the ADVENTURE goes on. Equally obviously there are narrative consequences to things. Not only was the feather not useful, but the character was run out of town over it (he managed to avoid that, but only at the cost of other consequences). If he goes and looks for an 'opal', well maybe he finds one. Maybe the owner wants 20x what it is worth now because the PC made so many enemies! Maybe he can steal it, etc. OK so what? The game IS going to go on. Surely SOMETHING has to happen next!

If the GM cannot frame scenes that move the fiction on and give it some sort of trajectory, then I'd say that is just bad GMing, its not reflective of the technique.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yes, which is my point, qualitatively different things are different things. When someone says that there's 'just as much agency' in one game as the other, they're trying to argue that 2 different things should be called the same thing. That isn't useful analysis, in fact its obfuscatory.

And nobody is arguing that all games are the same or need be the same.


The GM-centered game answer, player has no agency over the fiction here.

Which is only really compatible with some sort of player fiction agency, since presumably there's a possible positive result where such a thing does exist.

Why is this different in any real material sense than #1?

I would expect that the possibility wouldn't even have come up then, in which case we can assume that in the player centered type of Story Now game this implies the player is already suitably engaged, or wants something else. In either case the GM wouldn't introduce such a secret door here, and shouldn't.


I see fundamentally 2 approaches here.

1) The GM is in absolute control over what elements can be added to the fiction, a secret door (or anything else) only exists when he says it does.

2) The player is able to suggest or add elements to the fiction, or change the fictional positioning, in ways that are beyond or aside from what the character could do. This is usually a result of spending some resource and/or making some kind of check, but the exact details depend on the system in question.


Yes, it is, as I've just explained above


You aren't even having a discussion at the same level then. We're not talking about a specific set of rules. This isn't a discussion about player agency in B/X Molday (to pick a 'classic' ruleset). This point #1 you have brought up is only meaningful in relation to other possible ways to play, if you only compare a play technique to itself and then declare that it doesn't do anything different than its own self, this is what I would call a 'tautology' and kind of a waste of column inches!


Of course it impacts player agency, WRT #1 massively. The player now has an entire capability to express influence over the content of the fiction! To make this statement as you do seems literally nonsensical to me! Its like saying "here we have this orange, but its just an apple!" in direct contravention of what is readily apparent right on the face of the thing!


Again, this is just #1, and the same comment applies. The 'room for abuse' comment is not really relevant to this particular discussion (though it might bear discussion in the larger context of the whole thread).


Again, this isn't coherent or meaningful. Why would the player be checking for a secret door he has no interest in finding? What relationship to player agency would finding things he's not interested in have? There's nothing to this point at all.



Well, now I'm not understanding what you're saying. You SEEM to have claimed that there's no issue of player agency at all with #1 and #2 and that somehow they are the same, but they are in fact the 2 possibilities of a binary choice, the GM determines all fiction, or the GM doesn't determine all fiction. Here you seem to be speaking as if you fully understand that, yet you dismissed it a moment ago! If the player's ability to add to the fiction does not represent a field of player agency which does not exist if the GM disallows it, then how can the GM possibly take away player agency?

Because you and I disagree with the premise that option #1 means the DM determines all the fiction.

That is not the case. The player decides whether they want to search or not. That is a contribution to the fiction. That there isn’t anything to find is irrelevant, they still have complete control over their actions. They search, they don’t find anything, they learned something, and fiction happened.

The player doesn’t have an impact on the result of their search. They can’t determine whether a secret door is there or not, just that they would search for one.

This fits Eero’s model precisely: the player advocates for the character. The GM is responsible for the backstory and the fiction aside from the player’s ability to take action as the character.

The rest of my post is dependent upon that understanding.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because you and I disagree with the premise that option #1 means the DM determines all the fiction.

The GM determines everything about the world, which means they have 100% of the input into the scenario that the player finds his character in. This is what we mean, plainly and simply and we have said it again and again. The GM is determining what can be found, he's in charge.

That is not the case. The player decides whether they want to search or not. That is a contribution to the fiction. That there isn’t anything to find is irrelevant, they still have complete control over their actions. They search, they don’t find anything, they learned something, and fiction happened.

And they have NO CHANCE that what they were interested in finding will appear in the fiction, unless it behooves the GM to put it there. Total GM agency over the fiction! Pure and simple.

The player doesn’t have an impact on the result of their search. They can’t determine whether a secret door is there or not, just that they would search for one.

This fits Eero’s model precisely: the player advocates for the character. The GM is responsible for the backstory and the fiction aside from the player’s ability to take action as the character.

The rest of my post is dependent upon that understanding.

No, the rest of your post is exactly as I've described it. Even if we accept that your definition exists, your reasoning isn't making sense. I've shown you how there is a huge difference between the two scenarios, and just because you CAN redefine things such that you use the same word to describe two very different things doesn't make their distinction go away.

I can describe a tree and car factory as 'plants', but that has no bearing on any comparison between them. It doesn't make them more similar (except that they share a name).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The GM determines everything about the world, which means they have 100% of the input into the scenario that the player finds his character in. This is what we mean, plainly and simply and we have said it again and again. The GM is determining what can be found, he's in charge.


And they have NO CHANCE that what they were interested in finding will appear in the fiction, unless it behooves the GM to put it there. Total GM agency over the fiction! Pure and simple.



No, the rest of your post is exactly as I've described it. Even if we accept that your definition exists, your reasoning isn't making sense. I've shown you how there is a huge difference between the two scenarios, and just because you CAN redefine things such that you use the same word to describe two very different things doesn't make their distinction go away.

I can describe a tree and car factory as 'plants', but that has no bearing on any comparison between them. It doesn't make them more similar (except that they share a name).

So what you’re saying is that if I run a published adventure as is, without modification and without allowing the players to modify the dungeon as presented, they simply advocate for their characters and the outcome is determined by their actions and decisions within that world, that the GM has all the agency and the players have none?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So what you’re saying is that if I run a published adventure as is, without modification and without allowing the players to modify the dungeon as presented, they simply advocate for their characters and the outcome is determined by their actions and decisions within that world, that the GM has all the agency and the players have none?

I'm saying that within that process, the fiction, the universe of things which can be described, is entirely the province of the GM. The adventure will be about and contain exactly the things that were authored into it, nothing more, nothing less. No decision made by a player will change that one iota.

The player's choice is which fiction they evoke. Do they go left or right? They can, at most, try to create some 'different path'. I talked about this far back in the thread WRT to walling up one of the Caves of Chaos and what might ensue from that. The players are still not adding a new element to play. Now we can start to talk about a continuum in terms of what the GM will allow, but it is still his choice. He could simply have the monsters pour out of the cave and attack, he could simply decree that the project is infeasible. He could let it happen. He could even let the players dictate what the outcome will be, but in doing so he's going beyond how play of this type normally works. Its very rare to see players even attempting this kind of thing IME.

So, my final answer is, "it depends". If the players can generate NEW FICTION, by saying something like "we find bricks, mortar, tools, and lumber necessary to wall off the cave" and that works, then that's some level of agency over the fiction. Its not clear that such is possible in B2, though I think it is not too much to hope it might be allowed.

The difference is with Story Now the GM doesn't have to 'let it happen', its his job to FACILITATE it. He's allowed to create obstacles, but not to say 'no'.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'm saying that within that process, the fiction, the universe of things which can be described, is entirely the province of the GM. The adventure will be about and contain exactly the things that were authored into it, nothing more, nothing less. No decision made by a player will change that one iota.

The player's choice is which fiction they evoke. Do they go left or right? They can, at most, try to create some 'different path'. I talked about this far back in the thread WRT to walling up one of the Caves of Chaos and what might ensue from that. The players are still not adding a new element to play. Now we can start to talk about a continuum in terms of what the GM will allow, but it is still his choice. He could simply have the monsters pour out of the cave and attack, he could simply decree that the project is infeasible. He could let it happen. He could even let the players dictate what the outcome will be, but in doing so he's going beyond how play of this type normally works. Its very rare to see players even attempting this kind of thing IME.

So, my final answer is, "it depends". If the players can generate NEW FICTION, by saying something like "we find bricks, mortar, tools, and lumber necessary to wall off the cave" and that works, then that's some level of agency over the fiction. Its not clear that such is possible in B2, though I think it is not too much to hope it might be allowed.

The difference is with Story Now the GM doesn't have to 'let it happen', its his job to FACILITATE it. He's allowed to create obstacles, but not to say 'no'.

So I’m OK with your point about Story Now, that’s the intent and design of the game.

I disagree with your assessment regarding player agency in something like B2. The players have complete agency over the decisions and actions of their characters, in other words, the advocacy that Eero talks about.

In an RPG, the PCs can do anything that their character can reasonably do. That includes building a wall if that’s what you want to do.

Ultimately my point remains that even if the GM has control of the world it does not mean the players don’t have agency in the fiction. Just not that part of it.

To look at it from a different way, in the same B2 scenario, the GM has no agency over the decisions or actions of the PCs. Which is required for the fiction to occur. Otherwise he’s just reading a book without a plot.

So it is literally impossible for the GM to have all of the agency in that case. It is a shared fiction with a different division of responsibility, that’s all.

I don’t have an issue with the GM facilitating things. However, for the players and the GM to have agency, it’s not required either.

Not being able to say no is taking away the GM’s agency. So you’re saying there can be no empty rooms? No failure to find a secret door? What “no” is forbidden, and what does it have to do with agency.

If the PC goes to the market square to purchase a holy sword, and there is no holy sword, how is that impacting their agency?

If they are attempting to infiltrate the castle, and there is no secret door, how is that impacting their agency?