What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

I'm a VERY strong proponent of a player being able to define their character's appearance in whatever degree they want provided there are no specific mechanical implications. IE: the design of footwear in D&D is never specified. Certain items have certain looks, but generally it is unmentioned, and different styles of shoes have nothing more than flavor impacts on the game, so if a player wanted to specify that they wore high-heels or flip-flops or geta (japanese sandals), that's within their realm of determining since specific style of footwaear has no impact on gameplay.

I'm ALSO a very strong proponent of players being able to say the words they want to say. There are always exceptions, but I have held a long hatred for video games where the button says "I agree with Bob." and what really comes out is "I think Bob's mother is a Orc!". The players are in charge of what they say and how they say it, is a die roll is required, it doesn't change what they say, it determines how well it sounds to the other players/NPCs.

Is any of the above controversial? I don't think so.

But given that what you describe is basically inherent in RPGing (except perhaps the most degenerate games imaginable), it seems to set a baseline for player agency. So it can't really count as a large amount of it.

Yes, again, we have come through this many pages to finally establish that you believe Authorial Agency is necessary for players to have true Player Agency. I mean you can say that's not what you mean, but the way you write, the way you disparage Player Agency that lacks Authorial Agency makes it, IMO, pretty clear that you really don't think Player Agency without Authorial Agency is true agency.

I have talked repeatedly about "agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction". That's what I'm talking about. It doesn't require authorial agency.

Declaring "I search the study for the map" isn't an act of authorship. And the outcome, as far as the shared fiction is concerned, can be mediated via mechanics. That's one difference between a RPG and a collaborative storytelling game.
[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has, in some recent posts, pointed to other ways that players can enjoy agency in respect of the shared fiction, such as Streetwise checks, or establishing the agenda for play. These aren't authorship either, in any straightforward sense.

To go back to the example of going from A to B: there are any number of ways a player can exercise agency over what it is that will be encountered at B without authoring it. For instance, if the player's PC is on a quest to find signs of the coming apocalypse, than in a player-driven game artefacts or events at B will somehow be connected to said apocalpyse. This doesn't require the player to author anything.

 

[pemerton]

There's nothing wrong with that. Except. It. Doesn't. Work. For. All. Types. Of. Games. Specifically, exploratory play or play where the players are expected to maintain actor stance

I still think "actor stance" is a red herring. You don't need to step out of actor stance to declare "I search the study for the map" or "I look around the room for a vessel to catch the blood."

But that doesn't tell us how to resolve those action declarations.

 

[pemerton]

It isn't about TRUST, it is about "what is the most reliable and useful process by which to translate the player's agenda and wants into the narrative so they get to play characters that address those things?" That's all it is about. Why go through the roundabout process of having a GM devise an entire setting in detail without reference to the players, and then try to translate that into addressing what they are interested in? Why make every element of the plot and setting the sole responsibility of the GM so that he has to figure out a way to understand what the players want and then do it, instead of just having the player say <snip hypothetical example>

I think this relates to [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] upthread asking "Is it binary?" (ie player- vs GM-driven play).

I guess it can be non-binary in the sense that the GM adapts whatever it was s/he wrote in advance to respond to the player agendas - but then what work is the GM-driven stuff doing on that occasion of play?

I think this also relates to the distinction between prep and pre-authorship. Having some stuff ready in advance (eg in Traveller, given that's what I've been GMing recently, some worlds, some ships, some NPCs good to go) can be handy. That's different from having a setting that already answers the questions that are likely to come up in play (like "Who hear can be bribed?" or "What can we learn about aliens?").

 

[pemerton]

In our session today we had only 3 players (others couldn't make it) and so I suggested we try something different. I bought A Penny for My Thoughts years ago now - it has very catching visual design - but had never played it. But for whatever reason I've been re-reading it over the past week, and knowing that our crew would be a bit short I brought it along.

The premise of the game is that everyone at the table is an amnesiac undergoing treatment to recover his/her memories - all have taken a drug, Mnemosyne, that allows glimpses into the subconscious minds of others. The default framing is rather melodramatic, based on recovering first a pleasant memory, than an unpleasant one, then the reason that you lost your memories.

But an appendix has a Cthulhu-esque variant, where the first memory is one of a small victory against the darkness, the second of a horrible defeat, and the third of the events that blasted your mind so that you lost your memory. This seemed like the more fun version, and was what we played!

The basic structure of the game is simple: at the start everyone writes down 5 "memory triggers" which are then all put in a bag/bowl. For each of the three memories to be recovered, the player first draws a memory trigger. Then each other player in turn asks one yes-or-no question about the events that the memory trigger is related to, which the player whose memory is being recovered must answer "Yes, and . . .". With some context established, the main player then starts to "recall" his/her memory, but at key moments of action must ask another "What did I do or say then?" An answer is offered, and the player then turns to another and says "Or was it . . .?" and an alternative answer is offered. The main player then "recalls" which is the true memory ("Yes, I remember now . . ."), and goes on until the appropriate number of crunch points have been dealt with (there is a penny collecting-and-spending mechanic that decides how many crunch points in each recovered memory). At which point the player rounds things off and concludes "And that's what I remember."

So this is not a RPG, it's a pure cooperative storytelling game. It's relevance to this thread is the way in which a strong sense of shared setting was very quickly developed, even though one (and perhaps another) of the players had never read HPL or come across Cthulhu, deep ones, mi-go, Nyarlathotep, etc before. It was also interesting to see the setting evolve, as the weird science got increasingly more weird.

The game uses a device called a "Facts and Reassurances" sheet, to be read by the patients at the beginning of the treatment session, to establish genre. For the Cthulhu-esque version, that tells us that the setting is early 20th century, and that there may be aliens, spirits, terrible gods, and horrific surgery. But all the details emerged in play.

One example: a player drew the memory trigger "Something slimy on the back of my hand" and the resulting questions with "yes, and . . ." responses had established that he was being experimented on by deep ones in a laboratory. Later narration in response described a sense of the laboratory getting warmer; and another player's contribution in response to "What did I do or say then?" included a reference to the laboratory being in a volcano and the heat shields failing. The player chose that response, and went on to establish his escape from the laboratory (a small victory against the forces of darkness).

The next player first memory had established that he had a precognitive brain implant which allowed him to see places of sanctuary. It had ended with him escaping on a train from Paris to Marseilles. He now had, as his second memory trigger, "Flickering lights and lightning flashes". The first question was "Were you on the Eiffel Tower" - "Yes, and I was trying to harness the power of the lightning with my lightning catching device". THe next was "Was the flickering of the lights due to your sight wavering as a result of the implant?" Which also had to produce a "Yes, and . . ." response. And then either the next question, or maybe a "Yes, I remember . . ." following "What did I do or say then?" meant that he fell from the tower - into a net that (as another answer led to) his precognition had led him to place there. He went on to recall the failure of the lightning catching device, and the reaslisation that he needed a more powerful device - so he travelled south to Naples to harness the power of a volcano.

So a "memory trigger" written at the start of the game, before volcanoes had even been mentioned, turns into an idea for a device on the Eiffel Tower to harness the power of lightning, which connects to the idea of secret laboratories in volcanoes to harness even greater power.

This experience, plus similar experiences in the tamer context of RPGing, are what make me think concerns that GM control over setting is necessary to maintin consistency (of causation, of story events more generally) are exaggerated.

EDIT: I also thought I would try and say something about how quickly setting and character emerge in this game.

THe first memory trigger I drew was "Flowers on a grave" - which led to "Was it an ancestor of yours?" "Yes, it was the grave of my Great Aunt Gwendolyn, and I wanted to make sure she did not come back as a zombie"; "Had the protective symbols been erased?" "Yes, and they had been replaced by sigils from the Necronomicon"; "Had a portal to the Far Realm been opened in the coffin?" "Yes, and I was trying to make sure her body didn't get sucked into it".

I then ended up remebering that I threw the gravedigger through the portal instead, so that it would not take the body of my Great Aunt; and that when I got back to my house the person who had tampered with the gravestone was sitting on my doorstep - so I shot him. The questionairre on which one records one's recovered memory asks a question after each one. For the first memory (A small victory) it asks "To what did you owe the victory?" And I had to answer "Ruthlessness".

It took 3 questions + "yes, and . . ." replies, plus 3 moments of crunch with the two options for "What did I do or say then?", to establish that backstory and personality for my "character".

That's not completely dissimilar to how a GM's framing can interact with a player's establishment of theme/agenda in the context of a RPG.

 

[Nagol]

OK, I suspect it must be REALLY hard to find games to play in if you only like to play in games where you stay in character every moment and even a relatively brief pause to add some element to the situation which relates to your character is unacceptable. I've played a lot of games at a lot of tables in 40-some years, and maybe run into that once. I mean, I yield the point, and I just literally have to take your word for it as I think this is beyond the experience of almost everyone else here.

It is true I rarely get to play. That's more the result of being asked to run constantly. When I do get to play I really enjoy the luxury of inhabiting a single character. Often to the point where I forget about manipulating the game environment as a player (like using bennies in Deadlands or what Whimsy Card I was dealt). The joy of Champions is almost all the player authoring happens during character creation and between sessions for character advancement so it is easier to deal with than in the midst of play.

Now, the question of 'exploratory play' is very much worthy of more discussion. I'd propose that it is heavily characterized by imaginary exploration, but that isn't a very revelatory statement. Naturally, in the context of the current discussion what difference does authorship make here?

The answer is pretty straightforward, I think. The lure of exploratory play is to inhabit a role to act and react as the individual would. See something unacceptable in the world? What is the character going to do about it? The PC has the agency to act so take a stand. Pick a goal and work toward it. Find allies, destroy enemies, gather resources and strike... What difference can one person make in the presented world? What difference does your character want to make?

For strong exploratory play, the game world is much like a puzzle. Things that exist need to exist so that things that happen can happen for a reason for the players to accumulate sufficient information about the black box that the PCs can activate specific reactions in response to their actions. Exploratory play needs to suppress random 'crap happens' events because they interfere with information gathering. Having a single vision helps maintain the consistency of the fiction and its reaction to PC action. Having the players know that vision undercuts the world puzzle.

OK, this is another interesting point to discuss. I personally think that strong and distinct THEMES are most useful. So, for instance, I had a 'player centered' game which we all mutually agreed would be set in a sort of fantasy pseudo-Arthurian milieu. This is a very strong theme with a lot of associated tropes and archetypes, knights, damsels, tournaments, curses, quests, magical items, spells, sorcerers, etc. There wasn't a really strong NEED to have a GM defined setting in detail. We did all agree together before starting play on the existence of some specific characters and possible plot elements and how they related to the characters the players were creating. It was a pretty decent game.

Likewise I did a space-opera themed one. It was somewhat similar, except I (for whatever reason) generated a more elaborate starting milieu of my own devising. It was pretty thematic, but it didn't go as well. The whole pregenerated aspect got in the way of what the players were really wanting to do. I must say that what I find is its hard to KNOW what that is right off. Often you really have to play to find out what the important conflicts really are. This game was OK, but less world building probably would have been better.

Strong and distinct themes are useful in most games regardless of who injects action. They help the players maintain an understanding of the gaming expectation and help drive genre play.

For player-led games I do need to keep a lot of "empty space" in the world that's ready to accept someone else's paint. In many ways, the player-led worlds are "bigger" in that the world is less knowable and its reactions to PC action cannot be learned to be used as a PC resource (they become a player resource). For a space opera game, I'd suggest the initial tone, expected tech, type of society, and role of the group is probably enough frame to build initially.

 

[Nagol]

I still think "actor stance" is a red herring. You don't need to step out of actor stance to declare "I search the study for the map" or "I look around the room for a vessel to catch the blood."

But that doesn't tell us how to resolve those action declarations.

No, but actor stance does prevent "I play my 'Unexpected Aid' card. Who would have thought the map is in the kitchen of all places!". It also prevents "No, the bandit king doesn't attack. His attitude suffers a 'Sudden Reversion' and now he likes us much more."

If the answer lies within base player play then the declaration was incorrect or at least incomplete. Complete declarations would be "I find the map in the study for the map while searching" and "I catch the blood in a handy nearby vessel".

If we assume the declarations are complete for the type of play then there are two remaining possibilities: the answer is going to consume player resources or the GM the arbiter of answers.

I'm not going to address the first case because I consider it trivial.

In the second case, the GM has a few possible modes of preparation:
1) Prepare the position of objects considered meaningful to the game ahead of time. For the first declaration, having decided where the map is, for the second, having a inventory of room contents.
2) Develop a model (random or not) that an be applied to answer any declaration dependent on the environment
3) Respond to how the table "feels" at that particular moment in the game.

Are any of these modes objectively wrong? No, of course not. Will the consistent (or inconsistent I guess) use of one of these mode give a different feel to the game? I propose yes. And that's the answer to why world-build. It gives a different feel to the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, what do we actually have to fear? If the players simply give themselves the whole store, then its their own fault if the game is boring and pointless! What the exact balance is and how the relationship between GM and players works can be structured in numerous ways. I could run, say, 4e D&D as pretty much classic D&D, and I can run it with the players dicing to add elements to the story, like Vinny the Weasel, or I could even just let them insert stuff any way they want whenever they want, though some people will prefer specific structures (@Pemerton sticks strictly to the Czege Principle as he calls it, maybe [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] doesn't).

I think what I’m trying to say is that in the event that the play has become boring, that the GM has the ability to try and right the ship, so to speak. I mean, layibg the blame only matters in that it may help reaolve the problem. I don’t think that as GM I’d be happy if play had become boring and pointless.

So if the GM has some material in mind ahead of time that can help correct that if it were to go that way, then I’d view it as a good thing.

Personally, I think its fun if the players set the general agenda based on their character backstory and build choices, and then indicate the direction to go in by introducing elements to play which are plausible and connect with their action declarations. This is one reason I added the 'Inspiration' mechanic to HoML, it provides a specifically measured element of player manipulation of the plot which is mechanically constrained. I find this is easier for a lot of players to handle than simply "do anything you want with the story" as it keeps them more focused on doing relevant things (my version of this requires that the player relate any narrative element they produce to an existing character trait, and if they wish to exercise this option more than once per session they have to generate some kind of narrative element that is related to the character but contrary to their interests in order to regain Inspiration). I find this rule works pretty well, and its rather similar to how things like FATE and (I suppose) BW and Cortex+ work in some degree.

I thibk it’s fun when the players establish what te game will be about as well. I just also like to have some input as the GM. I feel like dismissing any GM input to the story simply because there can be risk involved in that type of play is not all that different from dismissing player input.

Why limit things in either way?

 

[hawkeyefan]

It isn't about TRUST, it is about "what is the most reliable and useful process by which to translate the player's agenda and wants into the narrative so they get to play characters that address those things?" That's all it is about. Why go through the roundabout process of having a GM devise an entire setting in detail without reference to the players, and then try to translate that into addressing what they are interested in? Why make every element of the plot and setting the sole responsibility of the GM so that he has to figure out a way to understand what the players want and then do it, instead of just having the player say "My character is interested in overthrowing the Duke, I think I know a guy that has some dirt on him <throws Streetwise check>. YUP! OK, so now I know that the Duke actually had an older brother, but he mysteriously disappeared before their father died..." What is really wrong with that? I don't get it. Its just a lot more reliable and less work in my long experience than hoping that the GM will 'get' your suggestions and deign to add said NPC to the game.

I mean, its not as if the GM can't say after the player's declaration above, "yes, but the guy you want has just been sent on campaign, so you can't ask him about it, and all you heard was a rumor that his wife gave you. If you want to find out the truth, you're going to have to dig deeper. As you return from your friend's house <check made behind screen> you get the feeling someone is watching you..."

Its not like the GM is ceding all his role in constructing the plot here. He's just not the only one anymore that can introduce some element of narrative into the fiction.

Now, lets say the character finds out that he needs a map in order to figure out where to look for another clue (something the wife said keyed him in on this, which required a history check, note that in my process this is ALL an SC). So the map is searched for, and maybe its found in the kitchen, lucky break! Maybe it isn't found, and the player is left failing to advance this element of the plot. OK, that's fine, there's always some other direction to go in, he can take a journey to find that guy that knows the stuff. He can try to nab one of the people following him. He can just find some other way to undermine the Duke.

Well here’s the thing....the GM need not decide everything about the world ahead of time. I’m just saying he should not be excluded from afding story elements.

For me, this thread started with a criticism of GM authored story elements, so I’ve been approaching the conversation from that angle. The potential positives of the GM adding to the story. I’m not criticizing player driven story at all, except to compare the two approaches at times.

So yes, the GM may have the ability to shoot down a player idea just because. But should he? I don’t think so....not without good reason.

I am simply saying that this concern about the GM thwarting player ideas need not be a concern if the GM is happy with player introduced elements. So in that sense, I feel your post above very much is about trust.

The GM may or may not put the kibosh on the player introduced contact. You prefer a method wherw he cannot because you don’t like the risk that he could. You don’t trust that he won’t.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is true I rarely get to play. That's more the result of being asked to run constantly. When I do get to play I really enjoy the luxury of inhabiting a single character. Often to the point where I forget about manipulating the game environment as a player (like using bennies in Deadlands or what Whimsy Card I was dealt). The joy of Champions is almost all the player authoring happens during character creation and between sessions for character advancement so it is easier to deal with than in the midst of play.

Well, I'm a 80% GM type of guy myself, though I have found I can play in MOST games and have fun. I just don't set some crazy high expectations from a game with people I don't know well and maybe play a different sort of game than I would ideally prefer. Still, most games are fun. Being in character is good, OTOH I think its fine to step back and assume a different point of view every now and then. A LOT of 'player facing' stuff CAN be done in character though, so its not like the players in my game are forced OOC a whole lot (@Pemerton noted this as well, but it can depend on the amount of authoring the players do, and when).

The answer is pretty straightforward, I think. The lure of exploratory play is to inhabit a role to act and react as the individual would. See something unacceptable in the world? What is the character going to do about it? The PC has the agency to act so take a stand. Pick a goal and work toward it. Find allies, destroy enemies, gather resources and strike... What difference can one person make in the presented world? What difference does your character want to make?

That seems pretty general. It could describe MOST RPGs. I mean, there are some tightly focused ones where exploration is perhaps only in service to an end, or secondary in consideration (I'm thinking of Gangster!, Paranoia, stuff like that), but other than that I think 95% of all RPG play would qualify, wouldn't it?

For strong exploratory play, the game world is much like a puzzle. Things that exist need to exist so that things that happen can happen for a reason for the players to accumulate sufficient information about the black box that the PCs can activate specific reactions in response to their actions. Exploratory play needs to suppress random 'crap happens' events because they interfere with information gathering. Having a single vision helps maintain the consistency of the fiction and its reaction to PC action. Having the players know that vision undercuts the world puzzle.

I'm not entirely convinced about the vision part requiring ONE PERSON to have that vision. Like I said, my group (there were 3 players, 2 of whom are long term players of mine and one was a guy who was less experienced but pretty savvy and had no trouble catching on) did this 'Arthurian Knights' thing. It was VERY tightly themed, and if some element was a little outside the typical milieu then we discussed it or adjusted it as needed. The story which resulted was perhaps a bit more cohesive than most of the folk tales, which tend to be pretty episodic, but it sure had a lot of authentic feeling to it. It was fun (though the genre is a bit limited for really long term play).

My problem with these black boxes is they so often go wrong. As I said about 'game causality' its hard to know what really all the options are. I think if you play to a very strong genre (say super heroes or something like that) and really don't leave the reservation, and keep the 'puzzle' relatively straightforward, then its feasible. I just think puzzle games are pretty niche. Also it may well be possible to do them with player input! I mean, elements of many of my games have involved hidden knowledge of a type, like "exactly who killed the Mayor? Was it the Alderman, the Baron, the Priest, or the Cleaning Lady?" Now, its possible in some systems that a player could 'solve' that by authorship or even success in a check, but its easy enough to establish a convention against that if you want.

I'm not sure why 'crap happens' is particularly endemic to player-led games. I'd say those are usually pretty tightly focused simply due to the fact that the object is to drive towards action which resolves conflicts that matter to the players. Sandbox games, IME, are much more prone to the sort of weird side-tracking where some trivial bit of description gets latched onto by the players and assumes some much greater importance than was intended. That is OK in a lot of cases, but it can really bollix up a game where there's a mystery to solve or something.

Anyway, I think its an area that still could be explored in more detail. I'm especially interested in what sorts of techniques could be employed in a game with significant player input to produce a real sense of mystery that holds up. I think it can be done, and I think its happened, maybe by accident, in some of our games, but I'm not sure I have a definite technique to share to accomplish it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think what I’m trying to say is that in the event that the play has become boring, that the GM has the ability to try and right the ship, so to speak. I mean, layibg the blame only matters in that it may help reaolve the problem. I don’t think that as GM I’d be happy if play had become boring and pointless.

So if the GM has some material in mind ahead of time that can help correct that if it were to go that way, then I’d view it as a good thing.

Yeah, I would say that GM in any game would want to, and should be able to, make the game more interesting if it has become stale or boring. They might do that by focusing more on what the player's want, etc. Maybe a GM plot line is a good idea at that point, the GM is really a 'player' too, it isn't automatically a bad thing. I guess you could say the Czege Principle applies here, but generally its the players that address whatever the challenge is, not the GM, so I don't think that counts.

I thibk it’s fun when the players establish what te game will be about as well. I just also like to have some input as the GM. I feel like dismissing any GM input to the story simply because there can be risk involved in that type of play is not all that different from dismissing player input.

Why limit things in either way?

In [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s technique, for 4e at least, the GM is actually authoring almost all of the content, just at the behest of the players, so I think GMs have probably STILL the majority of the input. Player wants to conquer the world, the GM brings in a cult of Vecna to facilitate that (maybe the player suggested that particular detail, but I'm guessing most of the particulars and how it was brought into the scenes was on the GM). Anyway, its usually pretty easy for a GM to address a character as well, by say presenting an idea to the player, or by just outright dangling something in game. This happens a lot.

I remember our first 4e campaign. [MENTION=2093]Gilladian[/MENTION] was running an Eladrin Wizard. The character's story was she was a youngster who was rebelliously fleeing to the world, and IIRC there was something about some sibling rivalry with an older sister or something. The party was adventuring and following in the footsteps of a previous set of adventurers (from a 2e campaign almost 20 years before). At various times they heard about this paladin from that group, and the Eladrin character conceived a fixation on this guy. Eventually they found him, trapped for 20 years in a magical trap deep in some dwarven mine. After that she chased after the paladin and acted like he was her boyfriend for a long time. It was a natural outgrowth of the original character backstory and agenda, but the exact form it took was shaped by GM produced backstory (or in this case it was produced 20 years earlier by a totally different group of players, to some extent). Anyway, it was certainly a GM-contrived thing in part. She took that bait, and then evolved that plot line from there.