What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Arilyn]

The argument over agency is getting odd. The detractors of Story Now gaming have claimed that their players wouldn't want to have input into the fiction. The players want to inhabit their characters as if they are there. It's the GM's job to create and describe the world. Fair enough. Why then, are there arguments that Classical players have just as much, if not more agency than Story Now gamers? It seems pretty obvious that not having input over the actual fiction, other than character decisions, is less agency. And since it is not desirable for the players to be declaring actions which shape the world, what's the problem? Aren't Classical games aiming for high character agency and low player agency? If you are letting players have some control over the fiction than you are at least dabbling in Story Now, and so, I would assume, not be too opposed to Story Now advocates.

The argument that Story Now gamers actually have less agency is even stranger. It seems to come from the idea that players are being flung from one crisis to another, with no choice or room to breathe. I'm sure that if the players desired some time to explore a bazaar or share a "family" meal aboard their spaceship, it would happen. I'm sure Story Now GMs aren't anymore tyrannical than regular ones.

The other objection is the idea that multiple players having multiple goals is going to cause less agency for the players who don't get their own way. How is this any different from every other rpg out there? Players compromise and GMs assure no one player dominates the table.

Although, some of these posts are getting a little heated, I think we need to also remember that good debators ask challenging questions. It's not necessarily personal attacks, or "one true wayism."

 

[Imaro]

The argument over agency is getting odd. The detractors of Story Now gaming have claimed that their players wouldn't want to have input into the fiction. The players want to inhabit their characters as if they are there. It's the GM's job to create and describe the world. Fair enough. Why then, are there arguments that Classical players have just as much, if not more agency than Story Now gamers? It seems pretty obvious that not having input over the actual fiction, other than character decisions, is less agency. And since it is not desirable for the players to be declaring actions which shape the world, what's the problem? Aren't Classical games aiming for high character agency and low player agency? If you are letting players have some control over the fiction than you are at least dabbling in Story Now, and so, I would assume, not be too opposed to Story Now advocates.

Emphasis mine: I think this has been addressed. If the players themes, concerns and interests are met in the classical game then they don't have less agency. This can be as simple as having character creation guidelines or discussion before play and doesn't necessarily require player input into the fiction... see my earlier post about a Planescape campaign where everyone is on board with it being Planescape.

EDIT: Also I think player's can declare actions in both types of games that shape the world... though I am a little confused on what character agency is supposed to be since it's always the player making the choice.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Even as an observer to this conversation, I tend to disagree with this assessment. Under that sort of definition, then yes it would be a definition of agency tantamount to "playing the game." And with my growing interest in games such as Fate and Dungeon World, the pre-bold seems like a more applicable and meaningful sense of player agency than the bold.

Then we are not even speaking the same language. I've tried to be clear. I know there is a big distinction in play at the table, because I've seen it first hand, between a game where agency is respected so the players can explore freely and just "playing the game". I really don't know what to say if I keep saying X and you keep telling me I am saying Y. If this isn't bad faith argument, I don't know what is.

 

[Arilyn]

Emphasis mine: I think this has been addressed. If the players themes, concerns and interests are met in the classical game then they don't have less agency. This can be as simple as having character creation guidelines or discussion before play and doesn't necessarily require player input into the fiction... see my earlier post about a Planescape campaign where everyone is on board with it being Planescape.

This just means they are happy with the current level;ithas no bearing on their agency in comparison to Story Now games. There seems to be an underlying theme that more agency equals better. This isn't true for all games or players. Total agency is not necessarily a good thing. If I start a new job, and am told to do as I think best with no constraints or guidelines, I'm going to feel at a loss. I would prefer some direction. I think the weakness of Story Now can be high player agency. The players might not know what they want to do. Story Now also runs the risk of the group ending up with not much story at all. There are strengths and weaknesses in both styles. In Story Now, the players have agency over what has traditionally been in the GM's hands. This gives them more agency overall--their character's agency in the imaginary world plus the player's agency over the fiction. It may be apples and oranges, in a way, but Story Now gamers are getting more fruit. For some, it might be too much fruit.

You say your players have just as much agency because they are playing in the campaign they want and are free to explore the world as they see fit. Yes, they have lots of agency. Your GMing style sounds great. It can't provide the same amount of agency as Story Now, without adopting Story Now, however. In Story Now, the player input on the fiction is continual. But so what? As mentioned above, too much agency can cause difficulties. Story Now remains a minority style, and I doubt will ever dominate rpgs. I have been recently been playing in a Story Now campaign. It's fun and engaging. I appreciate it, but I enjoy Classical just as much. pemerton, on the other hand, prefers Story Now exclusively, and I'm sure Lanefan will never like Story Now. I think we've been getting caught up in agency as a measurement of quality, which is leading to odd arguments and accusations of railroading on both sides of the debate.

 

[Aldarc]

I disagree... you take a look at many of the games/adventures/camapigns/etc. of the 90's and you can readily see this type of agency (which was curtailed, ignored and even overridden by many of the products of that time) does not equate to just "playing the game". People played games and lacked this type of agency... for a great example just look at the Dragonlance modules, some of the stuff that came out for White Wolf and even some of the stuff for AD&D.

You are certainly welcome to disagree. I will take your word for it regarding "many of the games/adventures/campaigns/etc. of the 90's" since my RP days began with the release of 3rd edition D&D.

Then we are not even speaking the same language. I've tried to be clear. I know there is a big distinction in play at the table, because I've seen it first hand, between a game where agency is respected so the players can explore freely and just "playing the game". I really don't know what to say if I keep saying X and you keep telling me I am saying Y. If this isn't bad faith argument, I don't know what is.

Then it's very well possible that you don't know what is. If you are unable to communicate your ideas clearly or they are routinely understood as communicating something else, then maybe there is something wrong with how you are communicating your message. But accusing me of bad faith in this case only poisons the conversational well.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You are certainly welcome to disagree. I will take your word for it regarding "many of the games/adventures/campaigns/etc. of the 90's" since my RP days began with the release of 3rd edition D&D.

It happened all the time in 3rd edition too, when people would structure adventures around encounter levels for example. It could be very difficult for groups to deviate from the planned series of encounters. Happened a lot in my experience.

Then it's very well possible that you don't know what is. If you are unable to communicate your ideas clearly or they are routinely understood as communicating something else, then maybe there is something wrong with how you are communicating your message. But accusing me of bad faith in this case only poisons the conversational well.

The only time I've ever encountered difficulty being understood on this point, is in this conversation. It hasn't happened to me elsewhere or in real life. Again, I am clearly saying Y (even defining it) and you and others twist my meaning into something else. Maybe you are not intending to do anything in bad faith, but can't you see how this rhetorical tactic is creating needless conflict.

In terms of understanding one another, I think I've come to understand your position and style well, and made every effort to describe it in the terms you are using. But that isn't reciprocated at all. I think I get what the other side like about the kind of agency people are describing, because I take them at their word when you say being able to shape the content of the fiction. I don't try to read it in the least charitable light, or twist it into some other meaning. And I am not even saying that what they are dealing with isn't agency. I am simply observing we are using agency in two different ways to to help conceptualize play. But I don't think you understand what my position is at all.

 

[Aenghus]

Over the years I can't remember the number of games I was in as a player, some years ago at this point when roleplaying was less self-aware, where my announced personal goals and ambitions for my character never got any satisfying closure on these issues by the time they left play. A subjective judgement for sure, but many issues in RPGs are subjective and resist being reduced to simple numbers.

In most cases it wasn't anyone acting in bad faith per se, it was just differences in priorities. Many GMs are primarily interested in their own creative work (worldbuilding, plots, situations) and consider player goals secondary or lesser. Some required that players "earn" the right to address their ambitions during play, or relegated them to downtime, or other variations of hurry up and wait.

I can see there's no immediate reward for a GM coming clean and saying that a players ambitions won't be possible in the current game, indeed it could cost them a player for that particular campaign. The GM can always hope the player will drop the goal or settle for the other activities of the game. Sometimes that's what happens.

But in other cases the possibly well-meant GM excuses get tired and frustrating over time, as it becomes obvious that seriously addressing the player goals just won't be possible in the life of the game.

IMO Story Now directly addresses this issue, giving assurances that the players can address their personal goals right now, no excuses, no "earning the right to try", no waiting to get to the fun part of the game.

The downside of Story Now gaming for me as a player is that I don't like self conscious big decisions, I suffer from analysis paralysis and the bigger the decision the more difficult I find it. As a player I often find conventional procedural play easier, as lots of small procedural decisions are easier for me than a smaller number of big drama-soaked decisions.

 

[Aldarc]

The only time I've ever encountered difficulty being understood on this point, is in this conversation. It hasn't happened to me elsewhere or in real life. Again, I am clearly saying Y (even defining it) and you and others twist my meaning into something else. Maybe you are not intending to do anything in bad faith, but can't you see how this rhetorical tactic is creating needless conflict.

"This rhetorical tactic" implies malicious intent, and once again you are playing the blame game.

In terms of understanding one another, I think I've come to understand your position and style well, and made every effort to describe it in the terms you are using. But that isn't reciprocated at all. I think I get what the other side like about the kind of agency people are describing, because I take them at their word when you say being able to shape the content of the fiction. I don't try to read it in the least charitable light, or twist it into some other meaning. And I am not even saying that what they are dealing with isn't agency. I am simply observing we are using agency in two different ways to to help conceptualize play. But I don't think you understand what my position is at all.

Speaking of bad faith rhetorical tactics... Don't group me into a camp for the sake of your reductionist blanket statements here. I have not declared any allegiance here. I am no "other side." I have raised my views on several points, but not enough to say that I belong to any "camp" or train of thought here. I disagree with your understanding of the term "agency," but that does not put me into any other camp anymore than [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] belongs to a camp for disagreeing with me on a few points regarding how I formulated my argument. Furthermore, please keep in mind that just because people may understand your position, they are not obligated to agree with it, your definition, or how you use it.

 

[Lanefan]

This is well put, and sums it all up quite reasonably. But, a few notes: (I've taken the liberty of inserting some numbers into the quote to connect to my responses below, as I wanted to leave your message otherwise intact)

This just means they are happy with the current level;ithas no bearing on their agency in comparison to Story Now games. There seems to be an underlying theme that more agency equals better. (1) This isn't true for all games or players. Total agency is not necessarily a good thing. If I start a new job, and am told to do as I think best with no constraints or guidelines, I'm going to feel at a loss. I would prefer some direction. I think the weakness of Story Now can be high player agency. The players might not know what they want to do. Story Now also runs the risk of the group ending up with not much story at all. There are strengths and weaknesses in both styles. In Story Now, the players have agency over what has traditionally been in the GM's hands. This gives them more agency overall--their character's agency in the imaginary world plus the player's agency over the fiction. (2) It may be apples and oranges, in a way, but Story Now gamers are getting more fruit. For some, it might be too much fruit.

You say your players have just as much agency because they are playing in the campaign they want and are free to explore the world as they see fit. Yes, they have lots of agency. Your GMing style sounds great. It can't provide the same amount of agency as Story Now, without adopting Story Now, however. (3) In Story Now, the player input on the fiction is continual. But so what? As mentioned above, too much agency can cause difficulties. Story Now remains a minority style, and I doubt will ever dominate rpgs. I have been recently been playing in a Story Now campaign. It's fun and engaging. I appreciate it, but I enjoy Classical just as much. pemerton, on the other hand, prefers Story Now exclusively, and I'm sure Lanefan will never like Story Now. (4) I think we've been getting caught up in agency as a measurement of quality, (5) which is leading to odd arguments and accusations of railroading on both sides of the debate.

1. It's not just a question of "more" or "less" agency, it's also been a comparison of different types of agency with some saying one is better than another.

2. The underlying risk here is that if these two agencies are taken too far (and defining "too far" in this case might on its own be a lengthy debate!) you could end up with players authoring both the problem via agency over the fiction and the solution via agency over their characters. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say even the hardest-core story now proponents don't want this, never mind the rest of us.

So there still have to be limits somewhere.

3. Here's where quantifying agency gently runs aground. The agency given by story now isn't directly additive to the agency of exploration-as-seen-fit, in that with story now (as we've been told a few hundred times and counting ) there's nothing to explore. As a direct result there's much less agency of exploration, but as this is more or less replaced by agency that's granted over the fiction the end result is about a steady state.

The agency of free-will action declaration - i.e. a player has the agency to play her character as seen fit - seems roughly the same in either style.

4. Oddly enough, coming from me, I'd probably find a story-now-like game quite engaging in the short term; assuming reasonably decent players and GM and a rules-light system. However, short term isn't what I look for in a campaign; and particularly if I'm expected to learn a new rule set or system for it I expect a campaign to have the capability to sustain itself for many years. Story-now, from what I've seen, doesn't seem all that able to do this - you play through the story arcs you and the other players defined up front and that's it.

Tangentially, but still relevant: story now seems to very much focus on the individual character story arcs rather than the story arc of the party as a whole. I'd rather focus on the story arc of the party, and let individual characters come and go during that span. Focusing on the party story gives all the players equal reason to be engaged all the time, where jumping the focus back and forth between individual character's stories mean each player's reason for engagement waxes (when it's their story in focus) and wanes (when it's someone else's in which maybe they've less interest).

5. Agency maybe isn't a direct measure of quality but I think everyone here sees a well-managed application of their definition of agency as a significant contributor to quality.

Lan-"if the fourth is with you too much today will you be pleading the fifth tomorrow?"-efan

 

[Tony Vargas]

You are certainly welcome to disagree. I will take your word for it regarding "many of the games/adventures/campaigns/etc. of the 90's" since my RP days began with the release of 3rd edition D&D.

The 90s were not a great decade for TTRPGs, I suppose. CCGs were introduced in '93 and cut into the typical new-RPGer demographic heavily, they (it, really: M:tG) dominated conventions for years, by the end of the 90s, young (under 30) TTRPG players were somewhat uncommon, and often had come to the hobby via LARPing. WWGS was the head-space leader in the industry, and TSR imploded.

In the 90s, 'story' was actually a big deal (nothing like 'Story Now,' it'd be more like "Story First," the GM, or even the writers of setting material, write a story/'meta-plot' and the GM pulls the players through it, more or less consensually/participationally), FWIW. It was also the era of UseNet and the infamous Roll v Role debate - which led to Threefold Theory, which led to all this crazy Forge lingo we use so inconsistently today. The most popular games of the decade were, IIRC, AD&D 2e (natch), Storyteller (WoD), and, though not really an RPG, Battletech (it was crazy popular, including crossover with a lot of RPGers at least at the cons I went to, and it had a crap RPG attached to it). Towards the end of the decade, the conventional wisdom was that those three won out because of the depth/wealth of their settings, which included novels and/or 'meta-plots' woven through the setting which, if your GM wanted to keep using the next book that came out (and one likely came out each month), constrained the kinds of stories your 'troupe' could tell.

So I guess we weren't just getting limited player agency, but limited GM agency, in a sense...