What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ilbranteloth]

OK, I guess I'm trying to still understand what these notes and lists and maps and such DO. I think we've actually got that however, it was way back around post 1200 IIRC, so I suspect now we're talking about something 'else'.

So, here's a small example:

A player states the desire of his character to collect all of the Seven Swords of the Greatest Heroes. After some number of travails he finds himself in a situation, which I have framed, in which he can gain one of these swords, or he can save someone's life (lets assume they're innocent and worthy of saving, that's how I could frame it). Its up to the player. His beliefs are now being put to the test! Every element of play leading up to this was directed in some fashion to this point. It might have included many setbacks and other equally trying situations, but here he is now, and he's got to choose.

I think that's pretty much the boiled down essence of the standard narrative mode of play. You don't HAVE to dispose of all background or 'myth', but you DO have to focus on the dramatic conflict, which is posited, INHERENTLY and can truly only come from, the player of the character.

So to answer the first part of your question:

Notes can serve as many different things. The most basic is something like a "typical orc patrol" with stats, etc. that are ready to drop in whenever needed. This could be something like a map of a tomb, perhaps with some traps and areas of interests detailed, and even could include some history regarding the interred. In the moment, a tomb is needed, pull out one or another, and use as is if it works, or modify on the fly for whatever's appropriate. Others can be NPCs with a few notes about their personality and motivations, etc. Really, just about any bit of content can be recorded as thought about.

For example, a brief set of notes about what I didn't like about the published descriptions of cloakers, and some ideas of what I thought would make sense. I might have scribbled those down a decade ago, when reading through a book, and said, "this is stupid." If/when I used cloakers, it gives me a starting point for developing something I would like. Later on, when coming across the note, I might flesh it out a bit with more ideas. How about this? OK, more ideas. Years later I find it again, with different inspiration, and knowledge of where the current campaign is heading, and how I can utilize them in this current circumstance. I don't know for a fact that it will actually come into play, but it gives me a lot more to work with should that happen. How they might be encounted, how the cloakers will act/react, the nature of what other local denizens know/think, etc.

I don't do this sort of thing just to prep for the game. It's sort of a hobby in itself. Read a book, find something you like, and you don't want to forget it. I do the same thing when writing music - record what I've got so I don't forget it. When I come back to it later (many years sometimes) it goes in a different direction. If I bring it out in a jam, the interaction with other musicians takes it in a different direction. A few years later, I might do something entirely different again.

During the course of play, the players might make a decision to go down a chute or shaft deep into the Underdark that leads to...what? If I've had a long week, not enough sleep, or a tough day, I might not have a good answer. The notes can be used to spark ideas, or in their entirety if needed.

--

As far as the standard narrative mode, we're not playing a game with that general style. I think that as I examine our games, we certainly use a lot of those techniques. But to start with, we don't start with such declarations or motivations such as "I'm going to collect the seven swords of the seven heroes." Most of the characters are just people. We have farmers, coopers, a bouncer, lots of normal people. As part of their responsibility in the town, everybody serves in the town guard a certain number of weeks of the year. So things might happen. In addition, they live in a secluded village, which leads to more possibilities due to dangers in the wilderness. There's a political situation going on, regarding a larger town that is over a week's ride away, (re)establishing a trade route through the village. Wealthy individuals like to come to the village during the summer to hunt monsters, and are looking to hire local guides.

Sometimes the people choose to do something adventurous, other times characters have "opportunities" thrust upon them. They do have goals and motivations, but they tend to be the mundane type, hoping to gain their own farm, raise a family, etc. It's a classic ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances type of campaign.

We work hard to provide lots of depth to the characters, including their bigger motivations, but the general thrust of everything is exploration. Exploring the setting. Exploring the characters. Exploring the politics, the dangers, dungeons, and such. Learning what makes these characters tick. Dramatic conflict is a part of what we do, but only part of it. Not every moment, or every scene, or even every session, has to be a DRAMATIC moment. Many times they are smaller dramatic moments. A great many of the dramatic moments are between the characters. There are often major dramatic moments that can be "life-changing" moments for a character or characters. But it's the smaller moments that develop the character, help define them in a way that makes those more dramatic moments even more so. It's not just about the big moments, but of a great many of moments that help define the character.

I don't see my job as being here to help set up the circumstances that allow the characters to accomplish their motivations. That's up to them. If one of the characters declares that they intend to become a famous dragonslayer, then they need to go do it. Not rely on me to set that up for them. They have to acquire the skills they think they'll need. Assemble the party that will help them do so, research the weaknesses, possible locations, etc. They'll track down spells or magic items that they think will help, and drive toward that goal. It might be years (real time) before they track down and make their first assault on an adult dragon, and it may initially end in failure. In the meantime, there will be many challenges, close calls, potential tough decisions, and sacrifices on the way. But they'll get there (assuming they do) through their actions and decisions, not because they said "I want to accomplish this" and I frame things in a way for them to reach that accomplishment.

This relates to the discussion regarding railroading as well. In my mind, the campaign is as far from a railroad as possible. There certainly may be things that I introduce that make their life more difficult. A rival group attempting to slay the dragon first, and using unsavory approaches, including sabotaging their attempts. Political interference, whatever. We do what we can do ground them in the world as much as possible (another aspect of worldbuilding), and those can interfere with their plans. Romantic entanglements, perhaps the loss of a loved one, etc. Success is often not just about the process of achieving it, but overcoming all of the unrelated aspects of life that often prevent people from reaching their goals. Perhaps they've discovered and retrieved the dragonslayer. A legendary sword that can kill a dragon with a single blow. That is recovered by a rival just as they discover its resting place. Leaving them to decide if the sword is really needed or not, and if so, how to get it back.

For us, it's about layers and layers of plots. Many of them directly tied to an individual's motivations, some speaking to several of them, others that apply to all of them (usually on a more temporary basis), and some that aren't directly related to any of these things, but are important or compelling at a given point in time for whatever reason. Such as serving guard duty for a week.

Despite loads of notes, the use of published materials, and all of the rest of that, it's about as far as a "choose your own adventure," "setting tourism," or "playing to learn what's in the GM's notes" as it can be. It's all about exploring the characters and their place in the world, and everything I do is to support that. I just choose not to discard many of the tools that Story Now games seem to eschew. I happily embrace many of the Story Now specific techniques and tools, often unconsciously.

Part of the problem that I think I continue to have in discussing any of these tools and techniques is that they are not exclusive of each other. My use of all of them is very fluid, hopefully finding the best process and content for the moment, from moment to moment, so at the end of the night everybody goes home with the same assessment, "that was a great session." When we try to discuss them here, we have the tendency to idealize them, and discuss them in isolation. To me they aren't necessarily separate, nor does one approach preclude the use of another, even in the course of a few minutes.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

There's no Schrodinger's Door if there's no concept of an ESTABLISHED fictional reality outside of what has been presented to the characters. This is something I maintain as a principle of play in games of the type I run, ONLY what has been presented in play exists, all else is vapor until you meet it. That wall didn't exist until we laid eyes on it, so who's to say it didn't 'always have a secret door in it'???

I agree with this, although ironically I also agree in the context of pre-authored content.

In other words, whether I've written it before the session or not, until it enters play it doesn't exist. And I've stated that several times in the past. I might write it down ahead of time, and keep it as written. I might write it down ahead of time and alter it. It could be written by somebody else. I might make it up on the fly.

In the end, the result remains the same, it doesn't exist until it does. And I reserve the right to change it until it does exist.

Of course, one way for it to exist, is for it to be published by somebody else, and the players read it outside of the session. But even in that case, it might not be true, and might be altered as it enters play. Again, until it has been presented in play, the "reality" doesn't exist yet.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is cool.

But wouldn't it be easier for you if you, on hearing the player's goal is to collect the 7 Swords, then came up with ideas on where each of those swords might be placed and what might be guarding them - and made notes on such - so as to save yourself having to make it all up on the fly later?

Yeah, I think that's a very interesting question. Honestly that seems to me to be the most natural response to the OP, though maybe we needed to go through some steps to get there, I'm not sure...

So, I'd say the process would then be that the players make up their characters and pick some high level 'campaign goal' somehow, and then the GM generates the settings and etc. needed to play that out. I think this might be a feasible approach for at least some subset of narrativist play. It might even be better if the GM and the players agreed ahead of time on this and then the players went off to make the PCs and the GM to do some world building/adventure design. This is not far from some things I've done, like the Arthurian Knights game we played that I described here a few posts ago. It does work.

Now, I think there's something to be said for a more dynamic and less scripted game. There is less incentive to create a 'Wizard of Oz Game' out of it where there's basically one 'yellow brick road'. The focus tends to fall more towards the PLOT, (IE finding the seven swords) vs CHARACTER (IE testing the PCs reasons/dedication/moral compunctions about/etc finding the seven swords).

I think each one delivers a slightly different product. I think they do form part of a continuum between 'classical' and 'standard narrative method' of the 'Pemertonian' type. I think that you can find a lot of games, including ones written/espoused by the forgite story now people, that fit all different points in this continuum. In this sense I am not opposed to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s proposition that such a continuum exists, though I think there are points he seems hazy on at times (and at other times not so much, threads are not the best way to communicate).

 

[Maxperson]

And who has ever said that players get to establish the consequences of failure?

Not me. Not Eero Tuovinen. Not any quote I've posted from a rulebook (for DitV, BW, MHRP, maybe others I'm forgetting).

In fact, in replies to both you and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], I have reitereated, again and again, that the GM narrates failures and this is a principal source of story dynamics.

Did you now read those posts?

Every time you say that your players do not declare actions to get you to say stuff YOU are saying that they get to establish the consequences of their failure. If you get to establish those consequences then they are declaring actions to get you to say stuff. You don't get to have it both ways.

 

[Maxperson]

So, no other activities exist in the game except checks with success or failure as the outcome!

Nobody frames scenes (everything happens in some sort of blank white haze perhaps?).

Nobody decides whether a check is required or not (I guess they just always are, can you walk down the street in this game of yours, or do you need to make a walking check?)

Nobody establishes how the fiction advances or what the wider consequences of any action are (I guess no new scenes ever appear, the players maybe just use checks to find 'stuff' at random?)

Of course they do, which is why [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s players declare actions in order to get him to say stuff. Every time he argues that they don't declare actions to get him to say stuff, he's arguing that they control everything, including scene framing, when and what checks are required, and all consequences. It's a ridiculous argument that he's making, followed by a ridiculous counter in order to keep from being the victim of his own propaganda about playstyles other than his own. He can't fess up to his players declaring actions to get him to say stuff, because that's the negative characterization he's tossing at my playstyle. If he does it, too, then his position falls out from under him. That forces him make statements that can only be true if the players control everything

The player is describing what his character does and wants to do in response to the events framed by the GM and WRT his goals/agenda/beliefs. That is what the player is doing. He's not trying to elicit fiction from the GM, except as that is incidental to and a necessity of, the play of the game. The OBJECT of the game for the player is to see what happens when he takes on the character persona and engages in situations which engage with the salient aspects of the character, which the player has designated before/during play.

The bolded portion = "in order to get the DM to say stuff." I get that the motivations are different, but the result is still that the player declares an action and the DM says stuff in response.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So I see the discussion on railroad/not has continued, but this post in particular had two points I wanted to make:

First, in terms of the Story Now approach of searching for a secret door, that the check itself is (at least partially) responsible for determining whether a secret door is found - what consideration is made, and how, that a secret door may not belong there?

While we explored this a bit with more absurd examples (the paladin declaring they find a holy sword at the market), why should the secret door be there? What if it shouldn't (logically speaking)?

I think there isn't ONE specific answer. First, different games might allocate specific responsibility for this. It could be a responsibility of the GM, which admittedly then becomes very much like "it isn't on the map". If the GM is really 'story now' though they will only nix possibilities that are really genre breaking or utterly ridiculous in a game-degrading way.

Another answer is that the players should be reasonable, they after all have a big stake in the game. Sure, in a given game they might 'break the game' by 'inventing' some vast amount of secret doors, but the standard narrative model doesn't just implode! The GM is still framing challenges, and the players can only succeed on checks so much of the time, eventually they will be buried in consequences of failures.

In a sense we're only arguing here about the DETAILS of the fiction, because EVERY narrative model game is going to have this character, the players declare actions to advance their agendas. Since it doesn't actually matter MECHANICALLY what those actions are (modulus which skill/power/whatever you get to use due to fictional reasons), the ONLY actual considerations are aesthetic! So it makes no sense for the players to declare dumb things, they are just as well off to declare cool things! You might as well ask why GMs in 'classic' D&D don't just make ridiculous and impossible adventures all the time.

A related thing is the continued (seeming) insistence that with a prepared map or notes that it is impossible for the DM to make changes. This is simply not true. There's no reason why, if a player decided to search for a secret door, that I can't decide that one might be present, and even in that moment make the decision that the dice will decide and allow them to make a check. However, if the circumstance (whether pre-designed like the map I was using, or in the moment) leads me to decide that a secret door just doesn't belong here, then so be it.

This is reasonable. It isn't EXACTLY 'classical' world building and play, but its a plausible procedure for running a game. I think there are many sorts of possible RPGs. The OP simply contrasted two sorts of design. We can expand the discussion to many others.

For example, one group of characters decided, for some odd reason, to leap into a shaft filled with water, the surface of which was some 40' down. The shaft was close-fitted stone blocks covered in plaster. It was in a tomb, and was designed to lead to a false tomb, which had been plundered. The water was present because of a small stream that had since compromised the tomb.

The players jumped down without any rope, or any other obvious means of getting back out of the shaft. So why, would a check of any nature, suddenly make a secret door appear to allow them to escape their stupidity? The tomb wasn't designed for an easy way to escape (although this portion wasn't necessarily designed as a trap, although the shaft did have poisoned spikes at the bottom of it).

In many cases, the secret door just doesn't make sense.

I think this is going back in the direction of mixing classical game logic with narrativist ideas and things aren't coherent. In classical play your observation is entirely cogent. In standard narrative model it doesn't make much sense. I mean, if the players jumped down, then they had SOME reason, right? I mean, why are they here to begin with? What do they WANT? I would make something happen that was related to the story and the characters. Maybe there's a way out, maybe someone can get back out.

I mean, what did you do? "OK, TPK, everyone roll up a new character!"? I mean, that's warranted, in a Gygaxian sense, and perfectly OK. It just doesn't serve narrativist ends and wouldn't happen in that sort of game. Nobody would frame a scene with that element in it which would produce that result.

I will also point out, that I've seen a great many threads and articles suggesting that dead ends, and inescapable situations is poor design. I disagree. The world is not always a friendly place, and you can't expect that every circumstance will always have a way to succeed. To me (and us) it's in these seemingly impossible circumstances that some of the most interesting stories and adventures occur. Even if the party eventually succumbed to the elements, lack of resources, etc., and nobody outside of this group of characters ever learned their fate, the exploration of character, of the interactions of the characters, in other words, the role-play of a hopeless situation, was amazingly interesting and cool.

I believe I described such a scenario which I invented years ago where NO SURVIVAL was possible, the entire party was doomed. This was pretty much a narrativist game, it was all about how the characters reacted.

Anyway, I don't think its impossible to have ultimate failure in a narrativist game. It really isn't even that controversial. As you say, failure can be quite dramatic!

To me, a railroad has nothing to do with the setting or the dungeon. A railroad (or not) has to do with the story or plot. Do the players have control of their characters decisions and actions, or the DM?

A dungeon, a map, or whatever, can be used to facilitate a railroad. But a linear map does not in and of itself make an adventure or a campaign a railroad. Just like who decides whether a secret door is present or not (and when they decide it), you can't determine what is cool, or what is a railroad by a single point in time. For example, not finding a secret door is just a thing. A point in time. Not finding a secret door when you are running from a dozen guards is different.

A railroad also doesn't need to be preplanned. If the DM is determining the outcome of all of the decisions the characters can make, and the direction the plot heads, then it's a railroad, or at least headed that way.

I agree, and even Pemerton seems to agree, calling it relational IIRC. I think I agree with you MORE than he states he does, but I think this is just one of these cases where nobody wants to listen much.

Note that deciding a secret door is there or not (whether before the session or during) is not a railroad. Any more than deciding there are a half-dozen orcs in this room, or the placement of any other challenge, setback, etc. It sets the framework around which the PCs make their choices.

"OK, I'm not surprised that there's not a secret door here, but it certainly would have been nice. What now?"

The group trapped at the bottom of the shaft were there because of their own decisions. Indeed, there were several fallen adventurers under the water, their corpses carrying many things that might be of value, including an old grappling hook. Unfortunately, after decades of being submerged, the rope had long since decayed. It never occurred to me that an entire party would choose to jump into a shaft without bringing a rope with them. And they were the ones that insisted that they had not, when I gave them the option to assume they had prepared better, and decided they needed to grab one of the ropes they had already used up to that point and left in place.

I think 'secret door' is more a code for situations where the players aren't allowed to advance the narrative because the GM sticks to specific fictional positioning. It could be LITERALLY the secret door that Pemerton talked about, but maybe its a lot more likely to be a sequence of things where the players try X, and then Y, and then Z, and somehow always get nowhere. Its pretty easy to start to suspect that this is intentional...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But, it should be noted that a lot of the animosity in this thread is from Story Now based analysis of traditional play. If the point of play isn't aligned to the Story Now principles, the resultant analysis will be badly mistaken. The OP question makes this mistake. Prep is of varying use in Story Now, and shouldn't be used/created to decide the outcome of play in any case, but that's not how traditional play works...

Well, I think the OP just asked "in light of story now, what is the purpose of 'prep'"? I don't read it as a misreading of classical play, it is simply positing story now as the technique under discussion. Honestly, I think ALL of the discussion of classical play and the differences, etc. was thread derailment! It was NEVER RELEVANT AT ALL to what was supposedly to be discussed.

That was the other thread. I'm curious how that resolves when a detail of the built world comes up against an action declaration. Like, seriously, I'm curious as that seems like a case where the GM would negate the action declaration due to the previously established fiction. Or, is it a case where the previously established fiction's truth value is being questioned and the resolution will show if it was true or what the character now claims is the real truth? Depending on the specific action declaration and the specific detail, I can see either playing out.

Yeah, I think its a matter of system and details of the situation. The GM would be perfectly justified, in some cases, to say "No, we already established that this is an airless moon, you can't breath here." I don't think anyone would argue with that unless it was a fantasy game where reality is subjective... or something. Another case would be the secret door, someone could come back later and find that there was indeed a secret door! This would of course require that the fiction never really ruled it out, so I guess its not quite a fair example.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I think there isn't ONE specific answer. First, different games might allocate specific responsibility for this. It could be a responsibility of the GM, which admittedly then becomes very much like "it isn't on the map". If the GM is really 'story now' though they will only nix possibilities that are really genre breaking or utterly ridiculous in a game-degrading way.

Another answer is that the players should be reasonable, they after all have a big stake in the game. Sure, in a given game they might 'break the game' by 'inventing' some vast amount of secret doors, but the standard narrative model doesn't just implode! The GM is still framing challenges, and the players can only succeed on checks so much of the time, eventually they will be buried in consequences of failures.

In a sense we're only arguing here about the DETAILS of the fiction, because EVERY narrative model game is going to have this character, the players declare actions to advance their agendas. Since it doesn't actually matter MECHANICALLY what those actions are (modulus which skill/power/whatever you get to use due to fictional reasons), the ONLY actual considerations are aesthetic! So it makes no sense for the players to declare dumb things, they are just as well off to declare cool things! You might as well ask why GMs in 'classic' D&D don't just make ridiculous and impossible adventures all the time.


This is reasonable. It isn't EXACTLY 'classical' world building and play, but its a plausible procedure for running a game. I think there are many sorts of possible RPGs. The OP simply contrasted two sorts of design. We can expand the discussion to many others.


I think this is going back in the direction of mixing classical game logic with narrativist ideas and things aren't coherent. In classical play your observation is entirely cogent. In standard narrative model it doesn't make much sense. I mean, if the players jumped down, then they had SOME reason, right? I mean, why are they here to begin with? What do they WANT? I would make something happen that was related to the story and the characters. Maybe there's a way out, maybe someone can get back out.

I mean, what did you do? "OK, TPK, everyone roll up a new character!"? I mean, that's warranted, in a Gygaxian sense, and perfectly OK. It just doesn't serve narrativist ends and wouldn't happen in that sort of game. Nobody would frame a scene with that element in it which would produce that result.

So the scene started when they discovered the old tomb while they were guided for a couple of out of town nobles on a hunting expedition. To tie into one of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s favorite subjects, there were some secret ulterior motives. However, those had no bearing here.

Anyway, they opted to explore the tomb, pretty much because it was there. Of course, the prospect of treasure was a driving factor, and they had taken refuge in the entrance as a defensive position against an orc attack. They didn’t have to enter the tomb, and their position was very defensible, but they decided to move forward.

One of the characters, a 17 year old, decided to jump into the water. Another followed and located the passage that was now under water. To my surprise, the rest followed, without going to collect their rope.

They explored, found what they could, then realized they didn’t have a way out. I suggested that somebody would probably have gone back to get their rope, but they decided that they didn’t.

So we just kept playing it out. From that point on, I was needed very little. A few questions here or there, but mostly it was discussions among the characters. Part of what they did was provide clues for anybody that might come after them, and to record everything they felt was important in the hopes others could benefit, and particularly hoping that their friends would find them and continue what they thought was important.

Before the next session, somebody wanted to join the campaign. I knew that the noble was still outside, but hadn’t decided/diced to see if they had survived. So the new character combined with the noble, who had survived, became their way out.

The last part of your statement gives insight as to why some people consider Story Now games as more susceptible to railroading/taking away player agency.

The tomb was designed with a false tomb to fool tomb robbers. Why would I, as the DM, restrict their decisions to not allow them to fall victim to the design of the tomb as many before them. Originally, the poison spikes were a deadly end for most, due to a seesaw passage trap that was, by this time, obvious because it was stuck in a partially tipped position. So the original trap was obvious, but no longer dangerous because the elements had rusted the mechanism in place, and the pit had not only filled with water, but the poison diluted and the wooden spikes rotted and crumbling.

The state of this part of the tomb made it clear that it had been plundered, that it was once very, very deadly, and that there might not be much to gain from the risks. Obviously, there are often other things to be gained aside from riches. Several other expeditions to the tomb did yield some riches. The last expedition threw me completely, though. There wasn’t any specific reason to return to it at that point, but they decided that despite the fact that they had retrieved the treasure that remained, and found the remains of the mummy that had been slain by drow, they wanted to go open the sarcophagus they had left.

That’s right, despite the fact that they were already involved in a half dozen other directions, and that all of the deadliest traps and monsters had slain every other person who attempted to plunder it over thousands of years, they wanted to go trigger what was potentially the deadliest trap/encounter in the place.

The acid gas trap that remained was deadly, although fortunately for them only affected one of them. Since they had already found the remains of the mummy, they knew it was otherwise empty. This was months after their original exploration.

The encounters in the tomb were a mix of predesigned and improvised, along with some random determination. The only dramatic “need” at the time was the PCs desire to explore and gain treasure. As it turned out, there was much more that they found that related more to their motivations and ties to the village, things I haven’t detailed here. The ramifications of the three trips to the tomb, along with the death of one of the PCs continues to have multiple impacts (and is driving a couple of characters more specifically).

A quick summary: discovering the remains of a band that died a hundred years ago with ties (including a letter and a magic item) to a mysterious villager that they wanted to know more about.

The discovery of efforts by drow to plunder the tomb from below. They were already investigating drow activity on the area.

Confirmation of the evil/spy nature of a hireling of the nobles(which the nobles knew) and their suspected ties to a traitor within the party. This is related to the ongoing political activities in the campaign. This ties into significant motivations for several characters, and there are also significant disagreements among several of the characters on these matters.

Discovery of potential proof of the evil motivations of a Lord in relation to those political matters.

Information that may lead to the ancient dwarven ruins of Dekanter, a driving motivation for another character.

The acquisition of several items that have particular value to a cleric of Deneir that can help them with other matters.

The passing of the “test” by several of the characters who had inquired about joining forces with the Harpers, but had not found them (or didn’t know they had successfully made contact).

There’s more, but that should be enough for now. The point is, the exploration itself is one thing, but doesn’t exclude nor always include moments of great importance to each and every character. The three expeditions were undertaken by different groups of characters, but the later groups were acting on information as well as goals set with characters from the earlier expeditions. There were characters that were on two or all of them as well.

 

[happyhermit]

...
Now, some will contend that they're playing to 'explore', but the model is the same here, the GM has the 'gold' and the players are tasked with navigating the 'maze' to uncover it. The walls and traps of the dungeon maze may be replaced with other stuff, but they still remain.
...
I think the ONLY actual solid answer to that which ever came in this thread (and honestly, maybe it was the other thread, forgive me, was the one where [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] quoted one of the Story Now guys stating that you CAN have a 'built world', and it has utility in fixing genre and providing some footing for the players to leverage their character's traits into concrete action.

After years with the different styles and types of games, I have come up with a pretty solid view of what myself and many players I have observed get out of "worldbuilding" that we can't get anywhere else (as opposed to all of the things it can be used for that can also be achieved in other ways). The main thing I need worldbuilding for (as a player) is evoking "that feeling" I mentioned earlier, it doesn't have a name AFAIK but it entirely definable and I understand it about as well as any other feeling this point. A lot of people most likely don't care about it and no doubt many people that use worldbuilding extensively use it for other reasons, and many probably don't really consider whether they need to or not.

In terms of 5e...

5e isn't described in terms of playing in this way. It is certainly possible, but the game proposes a 'classical' concept of play where the DM makes a 'dungeon' and the players make choices for their PCs, but don't have any input into the consequences of their actions, beyond informal character advocacy (I note that the 'Inspiration' rule in 5e is an exception to this, if you use it).

4e was closer to being Story Now in its architecture. 'Say yes or roll the dice' was pretty close to being a rule, 'go to the action' was a constant theme, and a lot of the mechanical structure lent itself easily to Story Now techniques.

5e includes "Plot points" which are straight up this style of game, it even cites the example of a PC stating they find a secret door, which has been much discussed here.

Well, I said that I think GMs are pretty important in games, so clearly I don't really disagree with you TOO much, but I think that Story Now games have a lot more 'player telling the story' in general than 'classical' games do. In any case, the primary point is that the player is ordering up the story.

Its sort of like going into a pizza joint. You can buy a slice of what's at the counter, or you can order up your own pizza, with the deep crust or the thin crust, or whatever. Either way its pizza, but when you choose the style and toppings it is certainly more fair to say that you had some hand in 'making it'.

I can see a mother telling her kid "we made this together", but the day I tell a chef I had a hand in making a pizza because I chose the toppings This is my quibbling with your example though, I think I get your point and it doesn't seem far off from what I argued all along; the stories can be different in many respects (length, frequency, limits on generation) but by the definition pemerton was using the GM is telling stories. So are the players, if that wasn't clear.

 

[Lanefan]

And this is exactly the nut of the whole thing, and where the 'traditionalist' analysis sinks into the swamp, falls over, and burns (before being rebuilt for the 2078th time). The idea that the players "will just find secret doors everywhere" or that things will be 'too easy', or that the players will [violate the Czege Principle], etc. is all based on a fundamentally oppositional model of play. One in which the GM has hidden the 'goodies' in the 'maze' and its the player's job to guide their characters to it.

Whether the story or drama or whatever is player-created or DM-created or a combination; in all these cases conflict and oppositon and challenges - the things that makes the game "fundamentally oppositional", to use your term - have to come from somewhere.

If the players author these themselves and then also author the means to overcome them you've just said hello to Czege; so that can't work.

Now it could, I suppose, turn out that players are authoring challenges and conflicts for other players; but given the general anti-PvP stance around here I somehow don't see this happening very often.

Which leaves the DM to author them. She authors the challenges and conflicts (whether this is done by pre-authorship or by story-now action failure narration is for this point irrelevant) and the players try to author solutions through the actions of their PCs. Thus, unless you're doing full-on shared storytelling (which none here are, from what I can see) the game is always going to be somewhat oppositional between the players and the DM.

And on an even more meta scale, it's the DM's job to set and enforce limits via one or more of the game system rules, house rules, and spot rulings; all of which have in theory been agreed to by the players. It's up to the players to test and push those limits, should they so desire; which not all do. But for those that do, this testing and enforcing of limits - regardless of game system in use - adds another oppositional factor between players and DM.

The "it's too easy" objection comes from a sense that maybe the limits in some systems are a bit too lax and-or the DM's ability to set or enforce limits has been reduced or neutered; that it's up to the players to in effect police themselves.

The "they will just find secret doors everywhere" objection comes - at least in my case - from a far-too-often-proven-correct assumption that players will not police themselves: that wherever they think they need one they'll look for secret doors, and even if the dice-roll odds only give them success a third of the time that's still going to leave you with a world in which an awful lot of walls have secret doors in them.

Once the goal became to have fun playing the game and making up cool stories about the characters, etc. then all that went basically out the window. It is still possible to engage in it as a specific facet of a greater whole, but its not THE GAME anymore.

Except "cool stories" need conflict. See above for where that has to come from, and for why the oppositional model remains well inside the window.

And the goal of having fun playing the game has always been there; it didn't just magically spring to life with the story-now concept.

I think the ONLY actual solid answer to that which ever came in this thread (and honestly, maybe it was the other thread, forgive me, was the one where [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] quoted one of the Story Now guys stating that you CAN have a 'built world', and it has utility in fixing genre and providing some footing for the players to leverage their character's traits into concrete action.

Was that a quote from one of the Story Now guys? I ask because someone (Ilbranteloth, maybe?) posted a very similar theory in one of these threads, and I thought the words were his own.

There's no Schrodinger's Door if there's no concept of an ESTABLISHED fictional reality outside of what has been presented to the characters. This is something I maintain as a principle of play in games of the type I run, ONLY what has been presented in play exists, all else is vapor until you meet it. That wall didn't exist until we laid eyes on it, so who's to say it didn't 'always have a secret door in it'???

So it's not just Schroedinger's Door, it's Schroedinger's Entire World.

And how on earth is it possible to foreshadow or even accurately describe a scene in a setting like this? If the wall didn't exist until a PC saw it (or a DM framed it) what might have happened differently had its existence been previously known by the DM? Would sounds have echoed differently in the previous scene? Would temperature or airflow or lighting have been different? Most importantly, would these clues have caused the PCs (or the opposition, for all that) to have done anything differently? If yes - particularly to the last of those questions - then the validity of that previous scene is called into serious question; and if this sort of thing is common then the whole game is shot.

Lanefan