What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Sebastrd]

I think I am making a similar claim in relation not to two particular systems, but two reasonably broad but also recognisable play priorities:

Your claim is incorrect.

players exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction by way of action resolution
players learning what setting ideas and elements the GM has come up with, and enjoying the experience of learning them by way of second-person narration

I think it's pretty hard for the same episode of RPGing to serve both those priorities.

While it might be difficult or impossible to serve both of those priorities within the same action, it's absolutely possible to serve them both within the same episode, adventure, campaign, etc. I do it in every single game I run.
Your inability to accept this is clearly why you have such a hard time understanding dissenting responses in this thread.

For example: This weekend I'll be running a one-shot for a friend and his two sons. I've decided that:

1. I want to go with a gothic horror theme.
2. Werewolves and vampires are played out for me, so I want the primary antagonist to be a flesh golem.
3. The flesh golem didn't create itself, so I'll include a wizard/mad scientist character that created the golem.
4. I don't want the two to be allies, so I'm deciding the wizard botched the amulet that would control the golem; the golem has run amok and it resents its creator.
5. I also like including undead in my adventures; so the wizard's harvesting activity in the town's cemeteries gives me a natural way to involve undead, and they can provide a way for his shenanigans to get noticed.
6. That means there's a town, so I should come up with a few details. I'll name the town Crow's Landing (a play on "Ravenloft", with which my players are unfamiliar).
7. "Crow's Landing" reminds me of "crow's nest", a nautical term, so I decide the town will be a port. That means the sewers beneath the town probably connect with the ocean via some sea caves.
8. There's probably a lighthouse, as well. Availability of corpses means they don't bury their dead at sea, so they probably don't view the sea god(dess) as benevolent. That also means the cemeteries are either uphill and landward from the town or the townsfolk are willing to struggle with waterlogged earth to get the bodies into the ground.
9. The second option seems more thematic and interesting, so I'll go with that. So, maybe the wizard was creating the golem to expedite digging up corpses, since that's clearly hard work.
10. There will be an inn, the Sea Dog's Roost; a tavern, Black Bart's; a temple to the cult of sea-god(dess) worshippers, probably in secret; and a church that maintains the lighthouse, since it represents a bastion against the dangerous sea.
11. Since the lighthouse is a religious, protective structure, I'll place the cemeteries in its shadow. That means the lighthouse can only be accessed by passing through the cemeteries.
12. And, now I have my hook. The lighthouse requires some kind of maintenance or resupply, but the wizard's activities have the townsfolk/clergy spooked. Someone has to brave the cemeteries to reach the lighthouse.
13. Also, I'll add the threat of an approaching storm. This is a one-shot, so I want to instill a sense of urgency from the get-go.

All of the above is wordbuilding. None of the above has scripted anything out. Its an interesting situation, and it's up to the players and their characters to deal with it. All of it is subject to change as the adventure unfolds until it has been established as part of the fiction in play. However, it provides me with a framework from which to hang the opening scenes and to guide me as I adjudicate the players' actions and to answer their questions as we proceed. There is plenty of room for the players to exercise agency via suggestion or action resolution. There is also plenty of room for the players to discover the setting ideas and elements I've come up with and enjoy learning what only I know thus far. That's what worldbuilding is for, after all.

 

[Nagol]

Luckily for you, we've kept this thread alive for all that time!

OK, so you've teased this out in relation to DW and Moldvay Basic.

I think I am making a similar claim in relation not to two particular systems, but two reasonably broad but also recognisable play priorities: players exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction by way of action resolution - a whole range of games prioritise this, but 4e will do as well as any as a working example - and players learning what setting ideas and elements the GM has come up with, and enjoying the experience of learning them by way of second-person narration - I think that this is an important aspect of a lot of CoC play, a lot of post-DL D&D module play, and a fair bit of what (in this thread) has been described as the players, via their characters, "exploring" the gameworld and gathering information about it.

I think it's pretty hard for the same episode of RPGing to serve both those priorities.

But world-building offers more than "enjoying the experience of learning them by way of second-person narration". Dungeon World expects world-building e.g. "Draw maps, leave blanks".

World-building, as has been pointed out over and over again in thread, offers other value. Not least is the establishment of common expectation.

If you use a PC race's/creature's published background you've engaged in world-building. If you name a country, city, or person, you engaged in world-building. If you establish a law, type of ruler, or architectural style, you've engaged in world-building.

The first scene of the campaign almost always involves some world building (where are the PCs? Is anything other than PCs present? Do any non-player defined relationships exist?) In fact, every scene transition involves either new world-building (we've never been established this location before, what's it like?) or relies on previously established world-building for its initial conditions.

From the player's perspective, whether that world-building is happening a priori or pre-hoc is indistinguishable.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Alright, so I haven't posted in almost 3 months. I'm pretty much in my death throes of posting thoughts on TTRPGs. But I'm going to flail out a response here before rigamortis fully sets in.

There are so many reasons why these conversations never bear out any fruit on ENWorld, but a big portion has to do with play priorities and the facts that:

a) Not all play priorities play nice with each other because...

b) Play priority x may either subordinate (in play) or be nearly mutually exclusive to play priority y...

c) Play priority x's machinery may force multiply its priorities to the exclusion of priority y.

d) When this happens, the expression of player agency inherent to play priority y is impacted.

This is where people get annoyed, because this is a large component of The Forge's concept of incoherency. And The Forge and ideas of incoherency of game agendas/priorities gets people pissed.

But it always becomes manifest in a thread like this and should be (but my guess is I can't do it) easily conveyed when you examine a game like Moldvay Basic vs a game like Dungeon World. At the veneer level, they look to be similar fantasy games. In play, they are most definitely not.

Moldvay Basic's primary play priority is about testing a player's skill at logistics/strategic planning, puzzle solving, and using effective teamwork (in both maximizing output in Exploration Turns, parlay, and combat) to overcome the game's machinery (a complex series of obstacles + the Exploration Turn > Wandering Monster Clock > Monster Reaction synthesis) to limit dire peril in order to pull treasure out of a dangerous dungeon.

Dungeon World's primary play priority is about an endless stream of danger and peril and finding out what what kind of world and rich characters comes out of such a fray. ALL of the game's machinery pushes towards that play priority. Yes, there is some resource management and logistics, but that component of the game is there to augment that primary play priority, not to reduce its impact (eg; dire peril and danger is coming no matter what...that is the point of play...so spend your Adventuring Gear "here" or "there", it won't reduce the game's overall danger, but it will change its present nature, shape the world, and enrich your characters and others as we find out what happens).

If you try to mash those two together?...

One of those two play priorities will invariably become subordinate to the other. They don't inherently play nice together and matters are made worse when the game's machinery supports one paradigm over the other. Imagining that they do is a big problem in these sorts of conversations.

Now some games do a better job of synthesizing those particular play priorities than others due to the cleverness of their machinery. This is one of the reasons why Blades in the Dark has become such a hit.

This is the "Checkers and Chess" contrast that was mentioned quite some way back, mostly by [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]. I think it's very true.

We can talk about the good and bad aspects of either game.

Once we begin to contrast them, then it becomes a bit sticky because that's where the preferences take over rather than just examining one game and its intentions. Now, we're looking at both games, and how they perform the goals of one of them.

 

[Arilyn]

That explains why this discussion has gone nowhere.

Yes, there's been repetitive arguments and loops, but I believe that overall, the discussion has been interesting and thought provoking. I've learned some things, thought more deeply about how rpging happens, and have been engaged enough to do some more digging into Story Now.

The mistake I made earlier was assuming that I had been mixing Classical play with Story Now elements. My players had lots of agency, and made decisions which could take the story in any direction. They could even add elements to the fiction. Other times, I set up more traditional play. What could be more narrativist than that? If players weren't feeling creative, no problem, they would have my story to fall back on. This is a sound style of GMing, and will probably continue to be my preferred style, but it is not Story Now. It is in fact, as Ron Edwards describes it, simulationist. My table is simulating story. If I set up, even a loose framework of renegade outlaws rebelling against an evil king, my players are going to dive in and further those tropes. There is an assumption ahead of time of where this particular story is going, even if details are fuzzy, and the players will have buy-in. Even if the players do something unexpected, like joining the king's forces, the story is still about corrupt nobility vs. champions of the down-trodden. If I do a more sandbox style, the story and themes are still set up ahead of time. Players know they are wandering adventures seeking a variety of dangers, and probably accumulating wealth. A pre-set trope.

Story Now has limited world building, just enough to establish place, as there has to be some practicalities. Theme is not pre-determined, as it arises during play. The choices the players make at the moment determine the story and theme. The GM should be putting on the pressure in each scene, so players must make those decisions, which will shape the theme and tone. It doesn't necessarily mean constant physical danger. The questions can also be moral ones, or anguishing ones, where there is no clear choice, and someone will suffer no matter which way you go.

The important take away is that Story Now is not inherently better. Even Ron Edwards makes no value judgement, despite his reputation. All rpgs tell stories. How you tell them is a subjective choice.

So, a very long winded post (normal for this thread) to just say, I learned stuff!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, there's been repetitive arguments and loops, but I believe that overall, the discussion has been interesting and thought provoking. I've learned some things, thought more deeply about how rpging happens, and have been engaged enough to do some more digging into Story Now.

The mistake I made earlier was assuming that I had been mixing Classical play with Story Now elements. My players had lots of agency, and made decisions which could take the story in any direction. They could even add elements to the fiction. Other times, I set up more traditional play. What could be more narrativist than that? If players weren't feeling creative, no problem, they would have my story to fall back on. This is a sound style of GMing, and will probably continue to be my preferred style, but it is not Story Now. It is in fact, as Ron Edwards describes it, simulationist. My table is simulating story. If I set up, even a loose framework of renegade outlaws rebelling against an evil king, my players are going to dive in and further those tropes. There is an assumption ahead of time of where this particular story is going, even if details are fuzzy, and the players will have buy-in. Even if the players do something unexpected, like joining the king's forces, the story is still about corrupt nobility vs. champions of the down-trodden. If I do a more sandbox style, the story and themes are still set up ahead of time. Players know they are wandering adventures seeking a variety of dangers, and probably accumulating wealth. A pre-set trope.

Story Now has limited world building, just enough to establish place, as there has to be some practicalities. Theme is not pre-determined, as it arises during play. The choices the players make at the moment determine the story and theme. The GM should be putting on the pressure in each scene, so players must make those decisions, which will shape the theme and tone. It doesn't necessarily mean constant physical danger. The questions can also be moral ones, or anguishing ones, where there is no clear choice, and someone will suffer no matter which way you go.

The important take away is that Story Now is not inherently better. Even Ron Edwards makes no value judgement, despite his reputation. All rpgs tell stories. How you tell them is a subjective choice.

So, a very long winded post (normal for this thread) to just say, I learned stuff!

The problem in the conversation is the only thing being revealed to anyone is a few poster's conception of Story Now. And this is the only approach opponents are attempting to accurately describe. The issue isn't that style, Pemerton's definition of it, or anything like that. I have no objection to that style. But any other approaches are being dismissed. The only thing up for discussion it seems, is what is Pemerton and crew's understanding of story now. Any attempt to describe other play styles and other conceptions of character agency are dismissed or mischaracterized. It is just odd, that we seem to be perfectly capable of understanding what they are saying in their own terms. But our terms get twisted into something we didn't mean (and our very assumptions of what we experience at the table are called into question). It is as if the existence of free-open sandbox (or any variety of similar styles) are such a threat they can't acknowledge them. They have to define them away.

And if the discussion "What is world building for" is really about getting people to adopt the GNS model, I think it is a misleading topic in general. Not that GNS has zero value. Just it isn't the only way to think of gaming, and I think most people have moved well past those kinds of arguments about design. These days there is much more of a 'the proof is in the pudding' approach. Nice sounding arguments do not matter as much as table play.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

But are those things different?

If the presence of the force field is in no way hinted at, if the player has no idea it could possibly be there, then the character cannot succeed at the attempt. In which case, the decision of success and failure has already been made. So in that sense, there is a lack of agency in the sense that the chance for success does not originate with the PC.

I don’t agree with all of pemerton’s conclusions, but I do understand what he’s criticizing in this regard.

I can understand the criticism, but I think it is different if the intent is different.

If the GM's intent is to make it an interesting challenge along the way to whatever their goal is, then it is quite different than "you fail because I don't want you to succeed." If the force field is something that goes beyond that, and tells the characters (players) something they didn't know about the scenario, and is foreshadowing a tougher challenge in the future, then again it is far from "you fail because I don't want you to succeed." Whether the GM created that force field on the spot, or ahead of time is irrelevant in the player's experience of the game. At least it should be. The player indicates and attempt to leap across, the GM adjudicates.

And the reality is, the GM can have the wrong intention whether it's prewritten or not. To me there are two things that matter here - what is the GM's intent, and does the GM have the ability to alter the preauthored material to suit the game if needed? That is, if the preauthored material isn't appropriate, can he alter it before bringing it into play? If so, the preauthoring doesn't restrict anything.

Regardless, I also don't consider a preauthored "failure" to be bad either if the intent is good. For example, the GM couldn't know that the PCs would attempt to jump. Perhaps he expected them to search for force fields. In that case it would be an automatic success. Perhaps it's just a thing that's there, and the PCs don't interact with it all. Again, it is just part of the setting that presents a challenge for the characters to overcome. So they fail to jump through the force field. How tall is it? Can they go over it? Can they go under it? Around it? Disable it? Use magic to go through it? Their agency remains fully intact - they can roleplay their character's reaction to this new bit of information without restriction.

Part of the issue with all of these examples (including my own, and I'm not sure how to get around it), is that whether you succeed or fail on a specific task such as this is too narrow of a moment in time to really describe what's going on in the campaign. And that's also why I disagree with the idea that it's affecting player agency. At the table, success or failure of a task is far from success or failure in the game as a whole. If the player is able to make decisions and take actions for their character, that is, they can role-play their character, then I think they have their full player agency.

If I were to give an extreme example, how about an RPG where your character is imprisoned hanging by chains in an oubliette? The guards periodically throw filth or cold water down the hole, they sometimes drag you out of the hole and beat you, they give you stale bread and sour wine. Most of the time it is simply dark, the stench horrific as whatever water they throw down is never enough to wash away the waste through the sluices, rats crawl down the chains to gnaw at the sores on your arms and shoulders, and you never get more than what seems a few minutes of sleep. The character, and indeed the player, has no idea if they will ever be released or even survive. Is escape even possible? Is death the escape?

Your character literally has almost no agency at all. But the role-playing of the character is all about what's going on in his head. You have 100% agency in role-playing your character in this horrific, potentially character defining experience. Again, I think there is a meaningful difference between character agency and player agency. A previously undiscovered force field affects character agency, not player agency.

 

[Tony Vargas]

two reasonably broad but also recognisable play priorities: players exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction by way of action resolution and players learning what setting ideas and elements the GM has come up with, and enjoying the experience of learning them by way of second-person narration
I think it's pretty hard for the same episode of RPGing to serve both those priorities.

Seems like it would be hard to avoid at least elements of each. Clearly the DM has to come up with /something/ to get the ball rolling, and players have to do /something/ to keep it rolling.

The mistake I made earlier was assuming that I had been mixing Classical play with Story Now elements. My players had lots of agency, and made decisions which could take the story in any direction. They could even add elements to the fiction. Other times, I set up more traditional play. What could be more narrativist than that? If players weren't feeling creative, no problem, they would have my story to fall back on. This is a sound style of GMing, and will probably continue to be my preferred style, but it is not Story Now.

I think the only mistake you're making is in paying attention to those labels, and, especially....

It is in fact, as Ron Edwards describes it, simulationist. My table is simulating story.

...any label dreamed up by Mr. Edwards. ;P

 

[Arilyn]

Seems like it would be hard to avoid at least elements of each. Clearly the DM has to come up with /something/ to get the ball rolling, and players have to do /something/ to keep it rolling.

I think the only mistake you're making is in paying attention to those labels, and, especially.... ...any label dreamed up by Mr. Edwards. ;P

But in terms of Story Now his explanation holds water. He didn't actually come up with the term, just expounded on it at great length. And since the explanation holds up with what others are saying, than I assume it's a correct definition of that technique. I am not abandoning my GM style, and when I said I was in error, it was strictly in relation to Story Now, not that my technique is wrong.

As far as Ron Edwards explanation of Story simulation, isn't that what we do in rpging, and do you find something wrong with this definition? There is no implication in the explanation that states our stories are weak or not original. In fact, Mr. Edwards himself, states that Classical play is less likely to get screwed up.

I know there is a lot of resistance to GNS, but it's not that bad. The model assumes most groups are mingling the play styles. If you go far enough into narrative, you get Story Now, which doesn't play well with others, for sure. No matter which style you lean toward, all rpging is storytelling, however. There are different styles, but very very few groups are purely one style. Any game can be used for any play style, but some games support some better than others. It's not all that controversial, is it?

 

[pemerton]

But world-building offers more than "enjoying the experience of learning them by way of second-person narration". Dungeon World expects world-building e.g. "Draw maps, leave blanks".

World-building, as has been pointed out over and over again in thread, offers other value. Not least is the establishment of common expectation.

Sure, but does that mean that we can't talk about one particular feature that has also/I] been repeatedly mentioned and extolled in the thread?

The first scene of the campaign almost always involves some world building (where are the PCs? Is anything other than PCs present? Do any non-player defined relationships exist?) In fact, every scene transition involves either new world-building (we've never been established this location before, what's it like?) or relies on previously established world-building for its initial conditions.

From the player's perspective, whether that world-building is happening a priori or pre-hoc is indistinguishable.

I don't think that last claim is true. If a player says "I want to explore the catacombs, assuming this city has some?" and the GM checks a book/key and says "No, sorry, no catacombs", that is distinguishable from "I'm really not in the mood for catacombs today - can we do something else?" and both are different from "Sure, there are catacombs - you've heard there's an entrance at the back of the cathedral", or "Maybe - make a Catacombs-wise check".

If the first scene has been authored by a player (eg in the form of a "kicker" for his/her PC), the player can tell that too.

All these different ways of establishing the framing of scenes generate different dynamics and experiences of play.

 

[pemerton]

The lighthouse requires some kind of maintenance or resupply, but the wizard's activities have the townsfolk/clergy spooked. Someone has to brave the cemeteries to reach the lighthouse.

<snip>

This is a one-shot, so I want to instill a sense of urgency from the get-go.

<snip>

None of the above has scripted anything out. Its an interesting situation, and it's up to the players and their characters to deal with it.

If the players all build PCs who are roguish smuggler types, what happens?