What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ovinomancer]

And it astounds me that, despite [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's consistently measured tone, sometimes in the face of blatant hostility, that some continue to mistake honest analysis for insult.

I find this strange, given how you've shown upset at some descriptions of your playstyle that you find offensive due to a lack of understanding or due to the description involving non-principled play examples. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is using a model to describe hidden backstory in a similar way, despite numerous posters showing that his analysis is flawed because it lacks understanding and uses examples that are non-principled. Not that their impossible, but the common cases he presents show that he's fixated on play that is abusive of the social contract and doesn't actually reflect how all DMs use the technique.

After many 10's of pages, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] hasn't budged from his initial position, and, frankly, has on occasion engaged in very specious arguments to attempt to defend his position against all comers. Secret backstory HAS to a lesser form of play, period, and no discussion will deviate from that.

So, if you're astounded, it's because you have the same blinkers on.

And I say this as someone that's played, and very much enjoyed, both styles and runs in a 'middle path' style where I have both secret backstory and players are allowed to introduce fiction through action declaration. I'm also starting a Blades in the Dark game alongside my 5e game, and, in my opinion, that's also a middle path game where the DM has veto power over player introduced fictions. Much more limited than 5e, but the rules clearly say the DM has final say on whether an action declaration is appropriate. It also suggests never using that veto if you can help it, to let the story build as the players play, but this goes straight to the principled play argument that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] employs: you CAN do it, therefore agency is denied, principles be damned.

 

[darkbard]

I find this strange, given how you've shown upset at some descriptions of your playstyle that you find offensive due to a lack of understanding or due to the description involving non-principled play examples.

I'm not really sure what you mean about my "show[ing] upset." Though I've read every post in this thread, I think I've only poste five or six times, and most of those posts have been to praise pemerton's equanimity in the face of ruthless assault.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is using a model to describe hidden backstory in a similar way, despite numerous posters showing that his analysis is flawed because it lacks understanding and uses examples that are non-principled. Not that their impossible, but the common cases he presents show that he's fixated on play that is abusive of the social contract and doesn't actually reflect how all DMs use the technique.

This gets at the heart of the initial post: if worldbuilding (as subsequently defined as secret backstory to preclude PC action declarations) can possibly be used to curtail player agency (for all the reasons ennumerated throughout the thread), but principled play demands that it not be used so (that would result in an abusive GM), what purpose does it hold beyond this possibility.

And if player-centered games provide all the same depth of play experiences (as I hope this thread has adequately demonstrated) as secret backstory games, then what other possible purpose can secret backstory hold other than to serve as a GM's ace-in-the-hole to negate player agency and move the game to preauthored concerns?

After many 10's of pages, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] hasn't budged from his initial position, and, frankly, has on occasion engaged in very specious arguments to attempt to defend his position against all comers. Secret backstory HAS to a lesser form of play, period, and no discussion will deviate from that.

So, if you're astounded, it's because you have the same blinkers on.

And I say this as someone that's played, and very much enjoyed, both styles and runs in a 'middle path' style where I have both secret backstory and players are allowed to introduce fiction through action declaration. I'm also starting a Blades in the Dark game alongside my 5e game, and, in my opinion, that's also a middle path game where the DM has veto power over player introduced fictions. Much more limited than 5e, but the rules clearly say the DM has final say on whether an action declaration is appropriate. It also suggests never using that veto if you can help it, to let the story build as the players play, but this goes straight to the principled play argument that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] employs: you CAN do it, therefore agency is denied, principles be damned.

What is the purpose of having the capability of doing something if one never exercises that right? Isn't this just another way of reframing the OP?

Generally, I'm a huge critic of absolutist frameworks, but I have a hard time negating the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's too easy to convince oneself that juuust this one time nudging things to my GM agenda will make for a better game for everyone. And thus the floodgates may open.

 

[innerdude]

. . . what other possible purpose can secret backstory hold other than to serve as a GM's ace-in-the-hole to negate player agency and move the game to preauthored concerns?

This is a good question. But it does tie in somewhat for the need to define just what the difference is between "worldbuilding" and "secret backstory." Where is the line drawn between them? I think you can do many kinds of worldbuilding that don't directly veer into secret backstory.

A possible useful delineation might be a twist on the old adage, "Never put something in front of the players that you don't actually intend them to interact with." In most cases this is in reference to NPCs, meaning, "Never put an NPC in physical proximity to the PCs unless you're fully willing for that NPC to be attacked and killed."

But there's a hint there of the line to draw between worldbuilding and secret backstory---As a GM, no entity state or state of being within the fiction should ever be assumed when there's the potential for the party to interact with it.

It sounds pretty bold to put it like that, but in my head it rings true.

In other words, do worldbuilding to your heart's content. Create backstories for nations and cultures, create new locations and MacGuffins, create NPCs and treasures to find. Just don't hard code anything that the PCs may actually interact with. Worldbuilding ends the second it intersects with the PCs, even if indirectly.

"But, but, I already decided that the Marquis De Flambon is sending his guards out to hunt the PCs, no matter what!"

"But, but, I already decided that the holy grail is in the castle Aaaaugh, and only the old man from Scene 24 knows where it is!"

"But, but, I already decided that the trap in Hallway 88 in the dungeon is impossible to disarm, no matter how high the thief rolls!"

"But, but, I already decided that Globulus the Demon Blood Gnome can't be killed when he encounters the party at the marketplace, because it will ruin my plot!"


By contrast, when I'm GM-ing, my thoughts usually run along these lines---"So I previously wrote down that Event X / End State Y is a possibility here. But is that still the case? Would it make more sense, based on what the PCs have declared and accomplished, for something else to happen? Or is it okay for it to happen anyway, but the reasons for it to happen have changed? Does Event X / End State Y take away from the accomplishments of the PCs? Does it negate some aspect of play or element of the fiction that's already been established? If yes, is that fair to the players? If no, does it still make sense in context here? Or would it make more sense for another, different set of scene frames to open up, based on what's happening in-game and what my players seem to be driving toward?"

Those are the kinds of thoughts I want my GM to be thinking when I'm a player.

The absolute last thing I want my GM to be thinking is, "Well, that's the way I wrote it up and decided it would happen, so . . . yep, that's exactly what's going to happen."

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not really sure what you mean about my "show[ing] upset." Though I've read every post in this thread, I think I've only poste five or six times, and most of those posts have been to praise pemerton's equanimity in the face of ruthless assault.

Ruthless... assault...?

This gets at the heart of the initial post: if worldbuilding (as subsequently defined as secret backstory to preclude PC action declarations) can possibly be used to curtail player agency (for all the reasons ennumerated throughout the thread), but principled play demands that it not be used so (that would result in an abusive GM), what purpose does it hold beyond this possibility.

And if player-centered games provide all the same depth of play experiences (as I hope this thread has adequately demonstrated) as secret backstory games, then what other possible purpose can secret backstory hold other than to serve as a GM's ace-in-the-hole to negate player agency and move the game to preauthored concerns?

1) principles play would be to curtail action negation through secret backstory. If it's never used, there's not point. No, instead, that was about the mere existence of secret backstory being enough to mean that the DM will not only occasionally veto a declaration, but that they will instead veto every declaration that doesn't fit their 'choose-your-own-adventure' novel backstory. This is clearly false.

2) I don't think player-centered games provide all of the same depth of play experience. I think they provide a different play experience, one that can also be deep. This is a point that many have agreed upon, the chess vs checkers argument. The playstyles incorporate different approaches and goals and so can't provide the same experience because they aren't tuned to do so. You can mix and match a bit, but it's mostly importing some traits into a mostly DM or mostly player driven game.

3) the words you used here 'DM ace-in-the-hole' is exactly the kind of phrasing I'm talking about. This wording implies that the DM is using their backstory not to further play, but to arbitrarily restrict play in a way that is intentional to limit player action declaration. It implies an adversarial relationship where the DM is using the game to control the players, rather than a game where the DM is trying to enable players. You've chosen to frame your argument in a way that says anyone playing that way is just looking to screw over the players and don't want to let go of that power. It's false and exactly why the arguments are rebutted so strongly.

What is the purpose of having the capability of doing something if one never exercises that right? Isn't this just another way of reframing the OP?

See above -- it's not about never doing it, it's about doing it in pursuit of aiding players, not punishing them. Yet every example presented is one that assumes the DM will use secret backstory to punish players.

Generally, I'm a huge critic of absolutist frameworks, but I have a hard time negating the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's too easy to convince oneself that juuust this one time nudging things to my GM agenda will make for a better game for everyone. And thus the floodgates may open.

A few people have mentioned the matter of trust and this has always been loudly dismissed as unimportant, but I can't read this argument as anything other than a lack of trust. And also a lack of imagination that many DMs don't want to run that kind of game. I mean, if you can find DMs that enjoy running player facing games (many of which incorporation DM fiat rules but then provide principles to not use them arbitrarily) that would imply there are DMs that aren't interested in the kind of degenerate play you argue is inevitable. Why can't there be similar DMs that play in a different style?

When you shift to imagining that those that do not play like you do are all slowly devolving into the worst examples of play because you dislike their playstyle, why are you remotely surprised when your arguments for that are met with strong disagreement? Why are you surprised when those, like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], make those same arguments they're met with strong disagreement?

 

[Aenghus]

I used to use lots of adventure modules, and still use parts of them. While it's possible to adapt and change such modules to some extent, at some point the cost of extensive changes exceeds the benefit of using the printed module. In all cases the players have specifically agreed to play through the module.

So using printed modules generally involves either placing constraints on character generation, or expecting some PC wastage as players find out the hard way the PC doesn't suit the module, or the PC is killed/crippled/retired/removed from play. The PCs need to be compatible with the module, which might mean having certain generic qualities like "Good or Neutral aligned" or all being enemies of a particular faction. The more cagey the referee is about revealing secrets within the module or game setting, the less specific they can be about the PC restrictions.

Many of the difficulties I have seen in GM-driven gaming is when the GM doesn't properly vet character concepts for the intended game, and so some players end up with incompatible expectations for the game. Things like a rude barbarian concept in a gameworld where it turns out rudeness can be fatal, or a sickly scholar concept in what turns out to be a brutal survival march.

A player might reasonably say that the referee either shouldn't allow character concepts which just don't fit in a setting, or won't be fun for the player, or at a stretch, figure out ways to allow the character to be viable in the setting.

Some referees don't spend care about character concepts much and expect these issues to be resolved in game. Others place various restrictions on PC concepts and generation.

But with modern PCs often being complex and/or with extensive backstories, possibly with links to other PCs and NPCs, dropping characters and introducing new ones gets more difficult. I've certainly been in the position of trying to persuade a player to keep playing a PC in a long term campaign when they were getting reluctant or wanted to retire them (to play for a little longer, or permanently). Sometimes this means allowing character alterations or dealing with issues within the game.

Similarly, in a GM-driven game with extensive pre-prepared gameworld content, where the referee wants the players to access the gameworld through the eyes of their PCs, the players need to be content with that limited interface, and have player and PC goals that are compatible with such a style of play. This may be no sacrifice at all, many players have this as their preferred style of game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What AbdulAlhazred said.

No one in this thread that I can recall has talked about "excluding the GM from adding story elements" nor "dismissed any GM input". I, at least, have repeatedly posted actual play examples which illustrate such input (eg a wizard's tower; a dark naga; black arrows in a mage's workroom; a duergar stronghold; components of the Rod of Seven Parts; etc).

Framingt is, by default in a mainstream RPG, GM authorship of story elements.

The thread is expressly about worldbuilding, or - for those who don't like that use of that term - about the role of GM pre-authorship of setting. Which is not a synonym for GM authorship of story elements - it's a quite distinctive mode of that.

I meant the GM having backstory in mind ahead of play. Given your use of the term "world building" to mean something much different than its standard use, I'm sure you'll forgive my use of a more broad term in conversation.

What have you got in mind?

The PCs arrive in a duergar stronghold. The duergar who has accompanied them there warns them "Our ruler, Murkelmor, and I don't always see eye to eye." That's backstory, and is part of framing. When the PCs in my main 4e game arrived in the duergar stronghold I narrated a reasonable amount of backstory of this general sort. Two PCs - the wielder of the Sceptre of Law, and the tiefling paladin - were treated more favourably by the duergar than the other PCs, and the reasons for this (eg the duergar are devil worshippers who hate chaos) were clearly established at that point.

If you mean the GM establishing unrevealed backstory to use as a constraint on the success of action declarations - well, that's a different thing.

I mean pre-authored campaign material that the GM comes up with prior to play, but which is used not to thwart the players introducing story elements or declaring actions for their characters.

So my players gave me a good idea of what each of them wanted for their characters. This was not actually prior to start of play, but at a point when we decided to keep playing after playing the initial adventure module in the 5E starter set to familiarize ourselves with the game. Everyone like it, and liked their characters, so we decided to keep going. So they provided me some background info and goals (some of which had been established in play, some of which had not).

I then took those ideas and some that I had, and weaved them together. Some of my ideas were inspired, or further inspired, by ideas of the players. I also had some storiess that I wanted to bring about in play, so I connected those to the players' stories. The ideas I had and the ideas my players had have blended quite a bit. There are some elements about which I can honestly not say who came up with them. Others I know are mine, or a specific player, or the group.

So there is a larger story at play, some of which the players are unaware of, and they discover through play. I don't use the pre-authored material to force them down certain paths, or to thwart their ideas. I use it to hopefully enhance the story and play.

I was a bit surprised that someone would think that I am dismissing all GM contributions to the fiction, when I've posted multiple examples of such contributions over and over in the thread, plus set out a general principle for governing GM contributions: GM establishes framing and narrates consequences of failed actions (ie the "standard narrativistic model").

But I was also surprised upthread when the contrast between pre-authorship of the setting and preparation seemed to generate a lot of contention.

For me, in the context of this thread, it also comes back to how actions are resolved: if unrevealed GM-authored backstory is used to settle the outcome of action declarations, as a type of secret fictional positioning, that betokens - at that moment of play - a low degree of player agency over the content of the shared fiction. Likewise if play is focused on making moves that trigger narration of established setting by the GM. And likewise (and often related to that) if play involves making moves that will trigger pre-established responses in the GM's pre-authored backstory (eg finding the NPC whom the GM has noted will respond to a bribe).

fPart of the reason for posting about my recent A Penny For My Thoughts session is to try and illustrate how content can emerge in a back-and-forth where it's hard to say exactly who is the author (one player wrote the "memory trigger" about lightning, another that the warmth of the deep ones' laboratory was due to failing heat shields within the volcano, another that the lightning and a volcano in Naples could serve as sources of power for some weird science device). But it's crystal clear that pre-authorship isn't part of it.

I'm sure this is fairly common in a lot of people's RPGing. One aim of this thread is to try and think about this method, and others, more self-consciously.

I know that I have not criticized player driven play at all. I understand it, and why it is enjoyable, and that it is your preferred method of play. However, your stance in this thread seems to criticize GM driven play. Which is fine....but if you criticize that mode of play, and you ask what it is useful for, then that's what I am going to talk about.

So your stance on framing, and on player backstory and goals, and all these other elements....you have a very clear understanding of why you like them. What I struggle with is how you fail to see any use for GM driven story elements. Pre-written backstory as a tool like those others and not as an obstacle to players.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it's really telling of the obstinacy to engage the concepts of this thread beyond their preconceived notions by many posters that this still needs restating after more than 1000 posts on the topic!

Since permerton was replying to me in the bit you quoted above, I'll assume you're directing that at me, and I will say that I am not being obstinate so much as trying to understand the nuance of permerton's views. Because I don't think that the GM is limited to either framing in the sense that pemerton mentions, or in using backstory to deny player agency. I think that there are a range of uses for it in between those two examples.

And it astounds me that, despite [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's consistently measured tone, sometimes in the face of blatant hostility, that some continue to mistake honest analysis for insult.

Perhaps no insult is meant....but when people say they feel insulted, it's usually a better approach to acknowledge that rather than question it. I mean, if people are saying they're insulted, questioning that seems to be implying they're lying, which only serves to further the insult, intended or not.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This gets at the heart of the initial post: if worldbuilding (as subsequently defined as secret backstory to preclude PC action declarations) can possibly be used to curtail player agency (for all the reasons ennumerated throughout the thread), but principled play demands that it not be used so (that would result in an abusive GM), what purpose does it hold beyond this possibility.

And if player-centered games provide all the same depth of play experiences (as I hope this thread has adequately demonstrated) as secret backstory games, then what other possible purpose can secret backstory hold other than to serve as a GM's ace-in-the-hole to negate player agency and move the game to preauthored concerns?

I think your first paragraph above is the crux of my issue with Permerton's stance. Essentially, does "worldbuilding" in the sense of the GM concocting backstory for the campaign serve only to deny player agency? Does it offer anything else?

I think the clear answer is that it can. If we can imagine a GM who creates an interesting and compelling story that incorporates or at the very least does not contradict or suppress player goals, then I think that's all that is needed in order for the idea to have merit. Perhaps the Gm has come up with a villain that he has worked into each character's stories in some way, connecting them all but without forcing them along certain paths. The GM has a loose idea of where things will go or what some characters may or may not do, but leaves plenty of room for change along the way. There are pre-authored elements in this case, but I don't think of this as the same thing as a linear style adventure where the characters move along the pre-defined path and do not deviate from it.

Perhaps there is a chance that it could be done poorly....but I think the same can be said of any style of play or method of GMing.

I think a couple of possible answers to this question may be:

- to take many story threads offered by the players and make a cohesive narrative out of them
- to introduce an element wholly unexpected by the players because it is not directly connected to their stated desires

I think more have been offered in the thread, but those are the couple that seem the most relevant to me at the moment. Neither may be necessary....it's quite possible for the players to have goals that dovetail nicely with each other, or which are more group oriented, and a GM may not need to work to weave them together. It's also perfectly fine for a game to not have a cohesive narrative, and to be more episodic. It's also quite possible that through the course of play, something wholly unexpected is introduced spontaneously. Those moments are great and I'd never want my game to be without them.

So I would never say that anyone's game must have a certain level of GM direction happening; I've played games along the lines of Penny For Your Thoughts, and I understand the value and enjoyment of collaborative storytelling. All I am saying is that it is a method that can be useful, and need not devolve into the negative version that is being put forth.

 

[Lanefan]

I was a bit surprised that someone would think that I am dismissing all GM contributions to the fiction, when I've posted multiple examples of such contributions over and over in the thread, plus set out a general principle for governing GM contributions: GM establishes framing and narrates consequences of failed actions (ie the "standard narrativistic model").

But I was also surprised upthread when the contrast between pre-authorship of the setting and preparation seemed to generate a lot of contention.

What contrast?

Pre-authoring the setting is nothing more than preparation of a scene, only on a bigger scale and with a lot more moving parts.

For me, in the context of this thread, it also comes back to how actions are resolved: if unrevealed GM-authored backstory is used to settle the outcome of action declarations, as a type of secret fictional positioning, that betokens - at that moment of play - a low degree of player agency over the content of the shared fiction.

Thing is; you keep saying this like it's a bad thing, when it isn't.

Mystery is good. Hidden elements are good. Foes working in the shadows doing unknown-to-the-PCs-yet nefarious deeds are good. Being able to peel off the layers to discover the underlying forces that have been at work all along is good.

Likewise if play is focused on making moves that trigger narration of established setting by the GM. And likewise (and often related to that) if play involves making moves that will trigger pre-established responses in the GM's pre-authored backstory (eg finding the NPC whom the GM has noted will respond to a bribe).

This is how it works, sometimes. Other times the player moves trigger narration of not-yet-established setting by the GM, when the PCs decide to go where the map is blank. Same applies to the backstory - sometimes the player moves fit right in and other times they force changes to what would otherwise have been narrated (eg the one NPC who will respond to a bribe is the one NPC the party killed last night for no particular reason).

Part of the reason for posting about my recent A Penny For My Thoughts session is to try and illustrate how content can emerge in a back-and-forth where it's hard to say exactly who is the author (one player wrote the "memory trigger" about lightning, another that the warmth of the deep ones' laboratory was due to failing heat shields within the volcano, another that the lightning and a volcano in Naples could serve as sources of power for some weird science device). But it's crystal clear that pre-authorship isn't part of it.

In and of itself that looked like a really fun and interesting session.

But how sustainable is it over the long term? Could something like this be kept going for one or two or ten years?

I'm sure this is fairly common in a lot of people's RPGing.

Complete lack of pre-authorship? I very much doubt it's all that common overall; in fact I'd say it's fairly rare.

One aim of this thread is to try and think about this method, and others, more self-consciously.

Fair enough, and it has been thought-provoking.

Lanefan

 

[Nagol]

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).


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?

No, not really. For example, superhero play is rarely exploratory in the sense of trying to understand and decode the environment. It tends to be reactive in style (PCs react to prevent environmental changes threatened by the opposition) and focused more on the interpersonal (rivalries, relationships, mind set) when not tactical. I do run such games with some exploratory components using relationships and attitudes in place of maps, but I wouldn't call them exploratory focused games. A lot of comedic games also are not exploratory; either the setting can't be explored because it isn't stable (Macho Women with Guns), it isn't unknown (Teenagers from Outer Space), or it is just set dressing and doesn't count for advantage or disadvantage for PCs (Toon) .

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).

Did I say one person? [Goes back and checks] Nope. I've run with multiple GMs cooperatively so it'd be pretty foolish of me to say so. The vision needs to be kept separate form the players otherwise you have a situation where the group that needs to find a solution already knows all the information. That pretty much negates puzzle solving. Now there are playstyles where the players are playing to find out "what happens next" as opposed to "how it works and what do we do with it" where having all the (partial) available information in advance isn't a problem, but I find puzzle solving is the opposite if fun if I already know where every piece goes.

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.

Mileage, varying.

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.

Causality should (a) follow genre convention and (b) remain plausible. If both (a) and (b) are true then having a model that allows for all possible results is immaterial.

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.

Crap happens isn't pejorative; it's a grandma friendly version of a common saying about life. It's particularly endemic to player-led games because you have a bunch of people introducing narrative elements that feel right at the time. The problem with a bunch of people introducing such elements into a puzzle solving game is pretty straightforward. The elements introduced will randomly support and undercut the puzzle framework. Such element introduction works better in games where puzzle solving isn't a desired trait i.e. where behaviours and happenings can be explained post hoc.

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.

It is a hard problem. I think it could be done too, but it requires great care to not introduce contradictions and paradoxes (unless the game features those of course but I hate time travel games in general). One of the cooperative GMing games I was involved with had a exploratory focus and an undefined world. Each GM could take the world as currently defined and develop an adventure that offered further definition so long as nothing previously set was contradicted. GMing duties passed back and forth. The game fell apart mainly because the GMs ended up losing interest since we couldn't effectively lay groundwork. It was like trying to build a house you lay the foundation and come back to find a shed where the living room was going to go so you start laying a new floor over the over guy's garden plot. We agreed that the GMing experiment was better suited for other gaming types and probably for short runs rather than an open-ended campaign.