What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Maxperson]

And in related news, RPG designers the world over are reporting dismal failure in their collective attempts to rein in the number of hyper-specialized in-game deities. Pictures at 11.

I'm pretty sure they came from Discworld.

 

[Maxperson]

A 14-minute fall (840 seconds)? Now you're falling a little more than 45 km, or about 28 miles, by the calculator...it'd be more, of course, when you're falling up as after the first 5 miles or so there's much less air getting in your way. You're almost beyond the stratosphere at your highest point; and well above the ozone layer - so if the suffocation doesn't get you the radiation will, provided of course you haven't frozen solid yet. And then you still have to get back down and not burn to a crisp in the process...

There's one flaw in this................................................Spelljammer!! You take your oxygen with you, don't freeze, and no radiation.

 

[Maxperson]

It's doubly odd because it's really quite easy to see what Eero's concern is: namely, that narration sharing that collides with GM backstory authority defuses tension and produces anti-climax. He literally tells us as much, and provides illustrations that reinforce the point. And it's then equally easy to see that the sort of action declaration I've just described typically will not have such an effect, and hence he has no reason to object to it. And obviously doesn't, given that he praises games some of which permit it!

That's not true, though. There is tension in not knowing how you are going to get into a place, or how you are going to escape. Being able to pop a convenient secret door into place right next to you diffuses that tension quite effectively and makes the escape very anti-climactic.

Just to be clear: you assert that, as roleplaying experiences, there is no difference between a TPK resulting from playing through a situation using the combat rules, and the Gm just declaring "rocks fall, everybody dies".

I didn't say that there was no difference. I said that both result in being dead and both are the result of winging it. The satisfaction comment I made would be in reference to the difference between mechanical resolution and the DM just declaring them dead.

And you likewise assert that the only difference between "winging it" (ie the GM making up stuff but pretending it was in his/her notes) and a player declaring an action which, if successful, establishes some new element of the fiction like a secret door, is that the latter is improper winging it because the player knows how the element was authored?

Or do you have some other point you're trying to make?

There is no such thing as proper and improper winging it when it comes to the players. Either they wing it or they don't. Players are not the same as a DM. So if it's allowed in the game for the players to wing it, it was done "properly." My point is that the players are winging it with the creation of the secret door, and that the creation(if successful) is backstory authority as demonstrated by Eero's examples.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not the one who said "opportunities will knock" - that was [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s phrase. I asked him where they come from - player (in which case it's the agendas he claims to reject) or GM (in which case it's the menu he claims to reject). The fact that the player might ignore any given opportunity doesn't actually answer my question.

Maybe you missed my recent post where I stated that I never actually rejected agendas, but simply said they aren't necessary to have a character arc.

 

[pemerton]

Reading backwards to get a sense for this conversation, I am now intrigued by what Eero Tuovinen wrote in this context, but I am doing a terrible job finding the article that others are referencing. Do you or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] have the link available?

It's a blog arguing that "narration sharing" - ie allowing players to introduce key elements into the fiction at moments of crunch - undermines play in the "standard narrativistic model".

This main argument is introduced by some more general comments about how narration sharing can conflict with the reasons for having GM authority over backstory even in non-"standard narrativistic model" games (such as D&D and Trail of Cthulhu).

My own view is that, moreso than the argument against narration sharing, the blog is interesting for its very clear explanation of the "standard narrativistic model". As I already posted, I think it's much clearer than Ron Edwards, although Edwards has a wider range of interesting things to say. (It's worth adding: Eero's blog takes for granted that the reader has some familiarity with Edwards' ideas, especially about the basic nature of "narrativistic" or "story now" RPGing.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

the blog is interesting for its very clear explanation of the "standard narrativistic model".

I wish self-proclaimed RPG Theorists would pick labels for their theories that remotely make sense. "wargame accidentally turned into an RPG model" or "failed simulation model" or "consequences of coping with hopelessly broken mechanics model" or "justifying traditional stereotypes model" ...

 

[Lanefan]

I wish self-proclaimed RPG Theorists would pick labels for their theories that remotely make sense. "wargame accidentally turned into an RPG model" or "failed simulation model" or "consequences of coping with hopelessly broken mechanics model" or "justifying traditional stereotypes model" ...

Is there a "pass the beer and let's all relax model" in there anywhere? If yes, sign me up.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is there a "pass the beer and let's all relax model" in there anywhere? If yes, sign me up.

I've heard "Beer and Pretzels Roleplaying" before - often in reference to one of my favorite games, Gamma World.

But if that term had come out of the Forge as an RPG Theory it'd probably involve neither beer nor pretzels.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And this is where we keep going back and forth. The players have 100% control over what THEY do. They have 0% of the authority on any other part of the world besides their own actions. So to the degree their actions are creating events in the world they have a lot of control. They don't though have control over things their characters if they existed in that world would not have control over. Their ability to affect the world is limited to all the ways their character could affect the world if they existed in that world.

I would posit, and this is from my own personal experience of course, that a world that allows anything the players can dream up to become part of the "fiction" of the world is going to lack consistency and verisimilitude. I'm not going to buy that this world feels real. I've had DM's like that and my interest soon wained. I want a world that is crafted specifically to provide connections and relationships amongst all it's residents. Even the fact I know it's being determined purely by dice is off putting to me. It is why for most of this kind of stuff I prefer the DM roll behind the screen and just state what I see. I don't want it to seem as if the DM is a portal into a real world. He provides the sensory data and I provide my characters actions.

What I don't understand is why you feel restrained because you can't force fit something into the world that doesn't make sense even if you don't know it doesn't make sense. And now it comes full circle back around to Story Creation vs Classical Roleplaying. In my games, my players always choose the easiest path to victory. Why? Because that is what their characters would do. I bet in your games sometimes your characters choose the most cinematic choice even if it's not the best ultimately when it comes to accomplishing the mission.

Anyway. It's obviously fun for you and other people so that is what matters for your group. I admit I don't see the attraction and I don't believe my fellow roleplayers would either.

Yeah, and there are times when I can't understand why you think that things would be inconsistent and 'force fit'. I can't speak to what other people experience as verisimilitude, but in the games I've played and GMed which were, to a greater or lesser extent, Story Now that sense did not seem to be lacking.

As for characters choosing the 'easiest path', I'd say most players play their characters as if they're trying to survive and succeed. Its not really the case that Story Now 'waters down' or does away with challenges (as some have asserted) nor that it particularly leads to behavior which is overly melodramatic or out of character. I mean, if the players WANT melodrama, who's to argue with them really? Still, most players don't play that much differently in terms of what they end up doing, than they would have in 'classic D&D' or whatever. The plots and plans and quests and the things that are under threat from orcs, and demons, and whatnot, are just the things they picked! The GM is still picking obstacles in the framing, and the players are creatively finding ways to narrate overcoming them, or failing to do so. Cleverness and astute play are still virtues.

I mean, as a GM I could help create a story in which Johnny Dumbass wins by doing stupid things, sure. Its not the most natural story to tell, and not the USUAL sort of character most players are into. In a mild form it can even be a decent change. I mean, heck, we all remember that 3 INT guy (ahem @Galladian!) who bumbled through! That was fun, but a typical Story Game is going to be a little more grounded than that. Mule Go Bang! hahahahaha!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That has the same effect on other sort of games as well. Let's say that instead of investigation, the player was looking for potions and said, "I've heard rumors of these Moon cultists - it's said they brew powerful potions on the night of the new moon, to sell to those who are in need." The player is still creating the solution to his need, even if that need isn't information.

But is that allowed? It might be in SOME games, but there are many possibilities:

In 4e it isn't specifically allowed, and depending on how you approach the rules, may be completely disallowed. If you play 4e ala [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] then a player could make something, a Religion check maybe, or undertake an SC, to find out if the Moon Cultists make potions as stated or not. Failure will have consequences, success will probably establish this as lore.

In HoML you MIGHT be able to use Inspiration to create a plot element like "A Moon Cultist approaches me with a potion of Shadow Walking to sell" BUT the character would have to have some attribute which could be leveraged to explain narratively WHY this came to pass (and the player would still have to come up with that explanation). The player could also undertake an SC to try to find such a potion, but its not established that they will dictate the narrative terms, or that Moon Cultists will result.

In Dungeon World you could utilize the move Spout Lore. You would have to use it in a very specific way however to significantly constrain the GM into producing Moon Cultist lore. Other moves might be required in order to actually achieve said potion. 'Complications' and 'Costs' are likely to be involved, which are going to lead to the GM making some (probably soft) moves. These might include some unsavory features of said Moon Cultists, lead to finding the ENEMIES of the Moon Cultists, etc.

I'm not sure how this might play out in games [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is more familiar with, I'm sure he could explain how BW and Cortex+ would likely handle it. I'd think in both games that potions of whatever sort are wanted would need to be plausibly tied to at least one PC's beliefs or milestones.

Now, in PACE, you could pretty much do it, but again it would probably hinge on a success of some sort. Like you'd have to figure out where to go, which might involve overcoming some sort of obstacle. Assuming a PC has a relevant attribute rated they can probably do so at some cost.