What is *worldbuilding* for?

[darkbard]

I wasn't characterizing your posts as such. But I don't think this is an unfair characterization of some of the strong pushback.

No, dude, just no. You can't defend reckless hyperbole by saying that "ruthless assault," in any way, resembles "strong pushback." You should walk this one back a bit more -- it certainly doesn't elevate the rhetoric in any way.

Go back and read some of Saelorn's posts, in this thread and the "What is an xp worth?" thread that spawned this, and tell me if you think I have mischaracterized.

 

[Nagol]

Go back and read some of Saelorn's posts, in this thread and the "What is an xp worth?" thread that spawned this, and tell me if you think I have mischaracterized.

What happened elsewhere has no bearing on your statements about what happened/is happening here.

 

[pemerton]

I meant the GM having backstory in mind ahead of play.

<snip>

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.

If this is genuinely setting material - as opposed to ideas that might seem useful in play - then what prevents it from affecting player action declarations?

If the material deals with the locations of things, or the dispositions of NPCs, or the hidden forces at work in some game-relevant situation, how does a GM avoid it coming into collision with player conceptions of the shape of the fiction?

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.

I'm not sure how "interesting and compelling story" and "loose idea of where things will go" yet a"without forcing them along certain paths" and "plenty of room for change along the way" fit together.

For instance, how do we know that the NPC introducec by the GM is a villain? What if the players have their PCs ally with the NPC? Or what if some do and some don't?

Story tends to suggest a sequence of events with rising action, climax, resolution, etc. If the GM has an idea for such a thing, where exactly do the players fit in? Conversely, if the rising action, climax and resolution are the results of actual play, then what is the role of the GM?

This is why the "standard narrativistic model" emphasises framing and consequences. Compelling framing does not require the GM to envisage, in advance, what the compelling story might look like. Robust action resolution mechanics mean that these can be relied upon to generate consequences, again without the GM needing to envisage, in advance, what the compelling story might look like.

So my players gave me a good idea of what each of them wanted for their characters.

<snip>

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 stories 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.

To the extent that the players discover a GM-authored "larger story" through play, it seems to me that it is the GM rather than the players who is exercising agency in respect of those contents of the shared fiction.

And discovering a GM-authored story through play seems to me to mean that, at certain points of play, the players make moves that lead the GM to reveal (= tell them) some bits of that story. Eg maybe the players declare that their PCs spy on some person or event, and the GM reveals (= narrates) what transpires.

Perhaps you mean something else by the idea of "a larger story at play, some of which the players are unaware of, and they discover through play." I am just trying to make sense of what you are describing, including the contrast that you draw.

to introduce an element wholly unexpected by the players because it is not directly connected to their stated desires

I think it is self-evident that this is an example of the GM, and not the players, exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction.

to take many story threads offered by the players and make a cohesive narrative out of them

This can cover a very great range of things, from approaches to framing, to narration of consequences of failed action declarations, to "behind the scenes" manipulation of backstory to generate particular outcomes.

Having a failed search for the mace reveal that the mage's brother was apparently manufacturing black arrows - one of which killed the master of the elven ronin PC - might be an instance of what you have in mind.

So would the GM deciding, as an item of pre-authored setting detail that the only way to free the brother from possession by a balrog is to gain the help of the dark naga - thus linking the fate of one PC (the one whose brother is possessed by a balrog) with that of another (the one dominated by a dark naga).

It seems obvious to me that these are very different sorts of thing: the first affirms player agency over the content of the shared fiction, whereas the second is the GM establishing some setting element that seems likely to serve as a limit on subsequence player action declarations for their PCs.

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 am not in a position to judge whether or not what you do in your game enhances the story and enhances play. I'm just trying to analyse techniques, not make aesthetic judgements.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Well, that wasn't actually the question/commentary. The question was "if it is never going to use it to veto an action declaration, then why does it exist at all?" You COULD answer that, straight up, by providing some sort of reason. In fact some fairly plausible answers HAVE been presented. [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] for instance suggested that a type of mystery story, and a type of exploration would both benefit from secret backstory or hidden world elements (which is a bit different but COULD be hidden backstory, they're pretty close anyway). I posed some questions, which we may yet examine

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.

I think they can do different things. I actually tend to think that GM-centered play with hidden elements is MORE limited, but there are questions of aesthetics here and nobody can claim they own the final word on it, which is fine. I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has said pretty much the same thing. Its quite possible he's sometimes phrased that in a way that was more easily interpreted as antagonistic to your position.

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.

Its not 'false', sometimes its TRUE! I can attest to living that! I'm not saying that disbars the technique from use in any well-run game, or anything close to that. I would claim it means its reasonable to critique the technique.

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.

I think the people you are referring to prefer the other technique, so there's no reason for them to DEFEND the one you prefer. That doesn't mean they believe that it will always be used badly simply because it CAN be. Nobody claimed it is always bad. Criticism isn't identical to universal condemnation.

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 @pemerton, make those same arguments they're met with strong disagreement?

By the same token, why is player-centered play met with such great skepticism and quite often scorn? I think there's a theme here. No doubt you may remember the Great Edition War. I learned from that that MANY posters, while not basically unreasonable people, are set on the proposition that they have the most popular, natural, 'best' way of playing, of game rules, etc. At this point I have to count it a virtually universal trait of human nature. Why does it surprise you? In a mild form its really not a big deal.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I remember this was a point that was hammered on a bunch early in the thread, then I skipped a number of pages, so maybe it reached some conclusion I missed, but I was never happy with this. I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s initial definition of world building was a PERFECTLY GOOD ONE, and I don't think it is actually far off from anyone else's definition (or if it is one might ask which one is 'different from its standard use').

IMHO 'world building' includes establishing the cosmology, geography, societies, languages, races, etc. It also includes political geography, inhabited areas, their inhabitants, politics, etc. There's no clear dividing line you can draw between "the plane of fire borders the plane of air" and "Joe the barber mercilessly hates halflings and always reacts negatively to them" or "on June 30th the Duke will slip poison into the King's pudding and he will die" or "the map is in the kitchen bread box." Now, some of these might not always be understood to be world building by everyone in all situations, but even the last one COULD be (under the assumption the map is relatively unimportant to anyone and the kitchen is part of some mundane location that is not likely to figure much into play).

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.

Really, nobody doubts you. I don't even think this is controversial at all. Even if you're wildly exaggerating I still believe this is a pretty common case. It describes a lot of play I DMed in the late 90's and the late 2000's, though I didn't generally use modules much even back then.

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.

Speaking for myself I often ask about things in this kind of vein. It doesn't mean I think something is valueless because I question its value in an attempt to analyze it.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The first time could be honest analysis. Then we corrected him. The second and third times, okay. Maybe he missed the corrections. Then we corrected him a few more times. Times four to eighteen(or maybe more at this point)? That's no longer honest analysis. He's mischaracterized the playstyle as "choose your own adventure" too often for it to be anything other than insulting at this point.

 

[Maxperson]

I've not said anything about your game. As far as I know, you've posted no examples of your own play.

I've talked about some approaches to play eg "collecting information", in the context of a TTRPG, means "making moves that trigger the GM to say some stuff". If collecting information or "exploration" means something different in your game, then post about it.

I'm not talking about my game. That's why I said "our style of play" rather than "my game". You have consistently mischaracterized our entire playstyle and been corrected on it many times by multiple people, yet you continue to use the same incorrect characterizations. Beyond that, [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] spelled it out quite well, so you can refer to his recent responses to [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION].

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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) .

Well, I did consider these two genre, and I agree that they are on the 'not focused on exploration' end of the spectrum. Still, they have SOME exploration built into them (Toon is hard to categorize, its mostly slapstick, but it COULD involve exploring a novel environment now and then). Still, most games include, at least, some sort of 'investigation' as an element, and MANY, maybe even most, RPGs are quite heavy on exploratory activity of some sort. I mean, I'm thinking of games I've played in the last 10 years, it was pretty far up there as a part of the agenda of all but a couple.

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.

OK, I think its fair to say that most of the discussion here didn't involve multi-GM setups. Those, IME, are rare, though certainly not unheard of (I've done several myself, they're fun). Now, I can't say how much your gaming is of this type. I'm guessing [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and others are not usually playing this way.

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.

I think I have said that there's a point here. It is basically what the Czege Principle is all about. You can't both author a challenge and be the one to resolve it. The reasons may not always have to do with hidden information exactly, but in spirit its the same kind of issue, you're playing both sides of the field. Of course it WOULD be possible to have different players know different things, so I think we can't exclude a 'Pemertonian' type of game from having puzzles in it. The players simply have to say "I want to solve puzzles" and the GM SHOULD supply some, but another player could also in some types of game.

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 agree. The issue then, IMHO, is "can the player's actually work out, plausibly, what the GM is thinking?" It runs into two issues. One is they're not really thinking about causality necessarily, but about how their GM thinks, which is a bit different. Secondly it is often not really very similar to the type of reasoning you'd do in the real world, where you can gather a lot more detailed observation and just be a lot more systematic (and where "its boring" is not a factor). Thus real-world police work is quite mundane and boring, and when it gets crazy there's usually 100 police and one bad guy.

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.

I think we get this, but then I think that its really just a matter of what the players are interested in. If they WANT to solve a puzzle, then they won't 'spoiler' it. Right? I mean, this is [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s drum that he likes to play, and I understand his point.

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.

Ah, I have a remedy for that, which is probably not perfect, but it works. Strong genre. So, for instance, myself and 4 other people did a CoC game like that. The premise we hit on was that the characters were reincarnated in each section of the game. The first piece we ran was set in the 1980's, then the next was set in the year 450 AD, and the one after that was in the 1920's, and then finally the last one was in the far future. It worked OK. Each GM introduced new elements to the story, and the players simply played. Being CoC there wasn't really 'player authoring of story' DURING the sessions when they weren't GMing, but that hardly mattered as we each simply framed things so that our character could do something in a later episode. It was, interesting! I was a bit disappointed with CoC as a system, but the genre is so well understood that it worked pretty well.

 

[Maxperson]

It all depends on how these are implemented at the table. If the GM uses such preparation as scene framing or the outcome of failed player action, then we're talking about the same thing: no secret backstory, player-centered gaming. If they're kept secret from the players until such a time as they nullify player goals and actions, then [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION], myself, and other advocates for player-driven "story now" games would take issue, questioning what purpose this serves (as in the OP).

See, this is the kind of crap that gets the strong pushback here. You've set that paragraph up in a way that portrays our playstyle very negatively. It basically says "Hey, if you do it my way there's no problem, but if you do it your way, you're doing it for the sole purpose of nullifying player goals and actions.".

I'm going to ignore the "nullify player goals" portion since unless the DM is an asshat, he's not designing the game to negate player goals. As for the other, 9 times out of 10 the secret backstory comes out during game play in one way or another before it actually has the chance to affect the outcome of a PC action. The remaining 1 time in 10 will usually affect the PC's action to some degree, but rarely outright negates it. At no time is the purpose of secret backstory to nullify player goals and actions.

 

[pemerton]

He introduced "choose-your-own-adventure" as a descriptor of secret backstory games. He's been pretty consistent with examples that explicitly go to this.

<snip>

In a DM facing game, such a declaration can occur in multiple places, and the players are managing other factors of agency in how and where they look for the map among many locations available. They can bring their resources to bear to reduce the available choices and improve success, but if the map isn't where they look (this time) they don't find it.

What are the "other factors of agency" at work here?

I can see the GM's agency. (The GM decided what moves will be sufficient to find the map - eg the players have to declare that their PCs look while their PCs are at place X, but not at place Y.) I can see that the players have the capacity to make moves that will trigger narration by the GM.

What other agency is at work here?

I prepared an orc encampment. Due to previously established in play information, this orc encampment needed to be threatening to the area (not the characters specifically) but not overwhelming. I prepped a large (60x60) map with a ruined keep (previously established at the base of the orcs) and a ruined village just outside (not previously established). I placed a group of orcs in the keep, and a group in the village. Those in the village were all regular orcs, but the ones in the keep included a shaman of Gruumsh. I did not include a warboss, because that would make the total group of orcs too dangerous to the area. In addition, I placed a few pit traps along access points the orcs didn't regularly use.

Play began. The players sighted the keep from a hilltop about a mile off, and couldn't make out many details due distance and tree cover. They could have directly approached, in which case most of the encounter map would have been a surprise (lots of secret backstory), but instead chose to recon by moving into the woods for a better vantage point. A die roll later and they spend an hour relocating to a better, concealed vantage. From there, they can see the layout of the map (I described it) and that there are two groups of orcs.

This seems to be an example of the players making moves ("recon", "relocating) that lead to the GM relating various bits of pre-established backstory to them.

The players opt to have 2 of their number approach and parley with the village orcs, with one wondering why they were separate from the keep orcs. The rest of the characters opt to sneak in closer to provide support in case the parley goes poorly. The group that sneaks in ends up near one of the pit traps, which they notice through passive checks and avoid.

"Noticing the pit trap" seems to be an example of the players making moves that lead to the GM relating a bit of pre-established backstory to them.

The parley group approaches and manages to start a conversation. A diplomacy check (failed) causes some tension, which is offset by a successful intimidate check back to neutral.

Who set the stakes for these checks? Without knowing that, it's hard for someone who wasn't there to work out what was going on.

The orcs respond to this by making a demand for tribute, paid to one of the orcs. One of the characters, who speaks orc and so has insight into their ways, makes an insight check to realize that this is typical orc extortion behavior -- a lesser member increasing standing due without the ability to actually negotiate.

This looks very much like an example of a player making a move that leads the GM to relate some pre-authored backstory.

The parley team then demands to speak to the boss, and finds out that the warboss isn't there, there's a shaman instead in the keep ("livin all posh in the keep").

Likewise.

The players interpret that as the village orcs not liking the keep orcs and the Shaman, and offer to help find the warboss. This is totally offscript (and, actually, has been). I rolled with it, and a diplomacy check later the orcs agreed that they didn't like the keep orcs and the shaman, and if the characters could find the warboss, they'd talk.

This appears to be an exercise by the players of some agency over the content of the shared fiction. The players seem to be working to a significant degree with GM-introduced elements, such as the shaman "livin' all posh in the keep"), but they seem to have introduced the idea of the orc boss.

I extemporized that the warboss went into the dungeons below the keep and never came out, with the shaman being the only survivor and who promptly ordered the stairwell blocked.

It's not clear if this is you just making something up "behind the scenes", or if this is you actually telling the players some more stuff.

the support crew failed a stealth check and drew attempt from the keep orcs. Right about when the negotiated ended, the keep orcs detected the support team and raised an alarm. The village orcs stayed out of it and the players mopped up the keep orcs with a fun standoff between the Dwarven cleric of Moradin and his spiritual weapon squaring off against the shaman of Gruumsh and his spiritual weapon. The pit traps switched in purpose to keeping intruders out to keeping the two groups of arguing orcs separate.

This seems like it began as more narration of established backstory in response to player moves (ie a failed Stealth check) which then led into the framing of a combat encounter.

The player then quickly swept the keep upper floors (all the orcs ran out to fight) and preceded to clear the stairs to enter the basement.

"Sweeping the keep upper floors" seems like more player moves that generate the GM relating pre-authored material. Clearing the main stairs seems like it might combine some of that sort of activity with a combat encounter.

Things that changed because of player: the orcs, the traps, the reason the stairway was blocked and that a warboss actually existed and now is missing.

I don't understand how the traps changed. The reason the stairway was blocked seems like it might be something known only to the GM?

What kind of play was this? I say it was very DM-facing, with liberal allowances for player generated goals and content based on those goals. I say it's DM-facing because a lot of play is still the players declaring actions and me narrating results, with go tos for the mechanics when the outcome is both uncertain and failure meaningful.

I would agree that this seems to be a predominantly GM-driven game. As you present it, a great deal of the play seems to be the players making moves that trigger you as GM telling them bits of the fiction that you have established.

The main player contribution to the shared fiction seems to be the idea of their being a boss of the orcs. I was a bit unclear how this worked, because you have the orcs saying the boss wasn't there - instead the shaman was - and then this becomes the boss being missing; but as you present it I take it to have involved a degree (maybe quite a degree?) of back-and-forth between you and the players (taking the form of the PCs' conversation with the orcs).

What do the players understand to be at stake in the recovery of the missing warboss?