What is *worldbuilding* for?

[gamerprinter]

World building is half my fun in being a GM.

Well those of you who know me, know I created the Kaidan setting of Japanese Horror (PFRPG) so you know at least region down is how I built Kaidan (almost never creating entire
worlds), aside from being a pro freelance cartographer, but now that I'm also my own small publishing company mostly creating stuff for Starfinder compatible these days. Just released a book on optional starship and space station rules. Edward Moyer, a SF designer, wrote the book with a huge number of my deck plans (174 pages).

My next big project, I'll be the author, with Ed as primary designer, but since Kaidan is my IP, I'm doing a Kaidan 2.0 (or Kaidan 2000 years later) as Kaidan the Interstellar Empire of Japanese Horror, so feudal Japan as dark space opera. With some cyberpunk aspects, MegaCorps as great samurai houses, conquered planets of kappa, kitsune, koropokuru, hengeyokai, tengu, and adding a few new player races (oni, same-bito, etc.) on their own planets or moons. That's going to be fun, though.

So I'm going to be world-building 7 planets across several star system and an oort cloud with all the nuance required. I look forward to that project and product!

 

[pemerton]

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.

Well, this is true only for certain values of what they do.

The players in your game, for instance, have 100% control over whether or not their PCs search for a secret door. They don't have 100% control over whether or not their PCs discover a secret door.

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.

Well, I'm not sure what "force fit" means here, and nor what you mean by "doesn't make sense". I mean, if there is a stone wall in an elaborate architectural construction like a dungeon or a castle, why would a secret door not make sense? How is discovering one "force fitting" anything?

Of course if the GM has already written a story about a castle with no secret doors, then it would contradict that story to find a secret door. But that's why I don't like that sort of pre-authorship, which prioritises the GM's story over actually playing the fiction at the table.

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.

Well, anything the players can dream up seems slightly exaggerated language - but, putting that to one side, this is not my experience at all. In my experience players want to play the game and play the fiction. Not break it or make it silly.

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.

"Cinematic" is not a big part of how my games play. But the players don't always choose the easiest path to victory - there can be all sorts of reasons (eg promises made, other sorts of obligations and moral constraint, etc) that comes into play.

My own PC is a knight of a holy order. He - which is to say I, when I'm playing him - am bound by obligations of chivalry, of justice, of faith. Only a weak or evil person would always choose the most expedient path!

In my 4e game, the player who is best at mechanical optimisation plays a drow sorcerer. From the first time this PC entered the game (at 3rd level), it has been established (by the player) that he is a member of a drow secret society, the Order of the Bat, whose members worship Corellon and have the goal of overthrowing Lolth and ending the sundering of the elves. At 28th level he finally had the chance to realise - the PCs killed Lolth. This particular player then sealed the Abyss at the 66th level (ie the Demonwebs), even though doing so cost him one of his four daily powers permanently (unless he wants to unseal it again), and also required him to change his paragon path (which was a power downgrade, given that his original paragon path - Demonskin Adept - is one of the most powerful in the game).

Whether or not that counts as cinematic (others can judge that), I don't think it counts as taking the easiest path.

 

[pemerton]

the players are winging it with the creation of the secret door

No more than they are "winging it" when they attack an orc! It's just action declaration and resolution.

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.

Why is trying to find a secret door less exciting than trying to fight your way out?

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.

This was discussed a long way upthread.

Does the player automatically have the power to buy these potions from the Moon cultists? Does this action declaration actually let the player right down in his/her PC sheet "10 Moon Cult potions"? If not, then the player hasn't authored any solution at all.

In my BW game, a player introduced Jabal of the Cabal as a NPC with whom he might make contact to find work. This didn't guarantee work, however - the resultant Circles check failed and Jabal send a thug to beat up the PCs and kick them out of town.

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 4e I may well just say "yes". Given the baseline assumption in 4e about the capacity of the players to have PCs spend gold for items, simply establishing an intriguing source of shadow walking (or whatever) potions probably doesn't do anything but add a bit of fun flavour to the game.

Whether the PCs can actually buy the potions is a different matter. By default gold in 4e can be spent freely, but I think it's fair game to require a skill challenge in the appropriate circumstances (eg buying unusual potions from a mysterious cult).

 

[pemerton]

He's very much describing the style that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and I run as being a "proper roleplaying game".

And?

Why wouldn't he?

But its certainly not an instance of the "standard narrativistic model". He's not saying that the way you play is the only form of proper RPG. (I mean, he actually instances a number of games, including Sorcerer, DitV and HeroWars/Quest, which do not work like what you and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] do.)

 

[pemerton]

By my definition, failure here means there's no door

That's what I called "weaksauce" upthread.

If you have failures like that, then of course checking for doors can be anti-climactic, as there's no cost to the check failing.

But that's not how systems that allow a full suite of action declarations work. They are generally "fail forward" systems. Upthread I described this aspect of the BW Circles rules: if a Circles check fails, the GM is entitled to introduce a hostile NPC (the one sought, or a different one) in lieu of the desired contact. This is what happened when the PCs tried to make contact with Jabal of the Cabal.

 

[Maxperson]

Lets analyze what's happening here. First of all I'll pass on the question of whether or not what you're suggesting is actually a good idea in terms of acceptable player agency. Lets just say it comes to pass through SOME means, but remember, failure was an option, and that would be hard on the character's chances.

Now, by creating a secret door the player is signaling a desire to move beyond the current situation. That is it isn't, in its existing framing, where he wants the character to be. This is a perfectly legitimate position for a player to take!

Next, consider what was ongoing, some attempt by the player to achieve something that was important to her. Creating the secret door is either abandoning that attempt (which is consequential and probably will have some blowback) or it could be an attempt to 'get away with the goods'. In EITHER case the GM is free to frame the next scene. What has she escaped from by passing through the secret door? The frying pan? Is she now in the fire? Lets play to find out! I'm missing where the tension was lost here...

This is also a reason why I'm a bit less concerned with the players having some real control. Its not like the GM gave up the right to frame scenes. Some GMs might squirm at the thought of the character escaping through the secret door with the crown jewels, I'm just wondering who's waiting at the other end of the secret passage to relieve her of them!

Right. Believe it or not, I understand what it is the player is trying to achieve by creating the secret door. My point with that statement is that if you need to get out of a place, there is tension in that. Am I going to get out? Am I going to get out in time? Am I going to live? How that ends is a climax. The creation of the secret door diffuses that tension and is fairly anti-climactic. Even if failure could result in ratcheted up tension, the player through ingenuity can keep attempting to create ways out. The tension is lost because the player knows he will eventually roll successfully.

To your last point. Yes, adding something else at the end of the passage to relieve the PC of the jewels can definitely add or replace the tension that was lost by the creation of the door. I say can and not will, because depending on what is there, your mileage may vary. My question to you about that sort of response to a successful roll is this. How is that not a form of blocking the player? The player made his intent known and succeeded. Taking the jewels away, or even trying to take them away on that success seems like blocking to me, at least as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and/or [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] have described it to me in the past.

 

[Maxperson]

No more than they are "winging it" when they attack an orc! It's just action declaration and resolution.

Correct. If the know the orcs are in the next room and plan out the attack, they are not winging it by attacking the orcs. If the orcs jump them and they just swing in response, they are winging it with the attack. An attack can be winging it or not, even if it's an action.

The definition of winging it. "To wing it is an idiom that means to improvise, to do something without proper preparation or time to rehearse." I see no reason that actions cannot meet that definition.

Why is trying to find a secret door less exciting than trying to fight your way out?

Not trying to find a secret door. Creating a secret door.

Does the player automatically have the power to buy these potions from the Moon cultists? Does this action declaration actually let the player right down in his/her PC sheet "10 Moon Cult potions"? If not, then the player hasn't authored any solution at all.

I think that if the player did not have the power to buy potions, he probably wouldn't have created that ability in the cultists, although knowing where to buy potions in the future is helpful. Second, authoring a solution isn't relevant to what I'm claiming. Solution or not, it's still a heuristic authoring of backstory.

 

[pemerton]

Not trying to find a secret door. Creating a secret door.

No. An action declaration to create a secret door would be "I build a secret door". It would be tested on Stonemason or Engineering or some comparable skill, or perhaps - if being done magically (as per the D&D spell Phase Door or something similar) by testing a sorcerous ability.

As opposed to "I look for a secret door", which is tested on some sort of Perception or Search ability.

Solution or not, it's still a heuristic authoring of backstory.

It's not a pre-authoring of anything, nor is it using a specific heuristic to simulate such preparation in real-time. It's action declaration. Resolving an action declaration isn't simulating preparation that took place in advance of play. It's actually playing the game!

Whether it's a form of problematic "narration sharing" is a further question. I addressed this at some length in a post upthread, considering different approaches to play and what may or may not be anticlimactic and tension-draining in those contexts.

My point with that statement is that if you need to get out of a place, there is tension in that. Am I going to get out? Am I going to get out in time? Am I going to live? How that ends is a climax. The creation of the secret door diffuses that tension and is fairly anti-climactic. Even if failure could result in ratcheted up tension, the player through ingenuity can keep attempting to create ways out. The tension is lost because the player knows he will eventually roll successfully.

(1) If failure means capture (for instance), then the player can't keep trying.

(2) If the player is not allowed to declare actions to try and escape, then how do you envisage the situation actually resolving?

 

[Imaro]

No. An action declaration to create a secret door would be "I build a secret door". It would be tested on Stonemason or Engineering or some comparable skill, or perhaps - if being done magically (as per the D&D spell Phase Door or something similar) by testing a sorcerous ability.

As opposed to "I look for a secret door", which is tested on some sort of Perception or Search ability.?

Yes but the effect is that a secret door is created... since it doesn't already exist.

 

[tomBitonti]

Right. Believe it or not, I understand what it is the player is trying to achieve by creating the secret door. My point with that statement is that if you need to get out of a place, there is tension in that. Am I going to get out? Am I going to get out in time? Am I going to live? How that ends is a climax. The creation of the secret door diffuses that tension and is fairly anti-climactic. Even if failure could result in ratcheted up tension, the player through ingenuity can keep attempting to create ways out. The tension is lost because the player knows he will eventually roll successfully.

To your last point. Yes, adding something else at the end of the passage to relieve the PC of the jewels can definitely add or replace the tension that was lost by the creation of the door. I say can and not will, because depending on what is there, your mileage may vary. My question to you about that sort of response to a successful roll is this. How is that not a form of blocking the player? The player made his intent known and succeeded. Taking the jewels away, or even trying to take them away on that success seems like blocking to me, at least as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and/or [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] have described it to me in the past.

I'm still working my way through this example.

Let's say the player received a prophecy earlier that they would find a boon in an unexpected place, which was provided to the character as an option to add to the story in the future to avoid an obstacle, and the player chose to use that boon to create the secret door.

Or, the sense of it could be more that the player can declare that there is a secret door, but the GM still has a determination of how usable the door is: There could be locks, or a guardian, or fallen rocks to clear.

Then, the player is really declaring that they are interested in escaping a foe (rather than negotiating with them, or fighting them), with the means being a secret escape of some sort, and the GM adjusts the tension by considering how the player manages to overcome challenges introduced along with the secret escape route.

Thx!
TomB