What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

At no time is the purpose of secret backstory to nullify player goals and actions.

I'm more interested in analysing function or consequence than purpose.

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

If you think what I'm describing doesn't apply to you, then what makes you think I'm talking about your style of RPGing?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Sure, our playstyle is more limited, but that doesn't affect its depth at all. Look at free form roleplay chatrooms. Pretty much no limits there. I went to one once, left about 10 minutes later and never returned. Player facing games have more limits than free form roleplay, and DM facing games more limits still. However, it's those very limits that help give the game depth and uniqueness. Where you limit the game and how will have a big impact on the game and where the depth of the game lies.

When it comes to DM facing vs. Player facing games, I don't think that either one has more depth than the other. Where the depth is, however, will be in very different areas and yield games with very different feels and experiences.

And c'mon. It's quite possible he's SOMETIMES phrased that in a way that was more easily interpreted as antagonistic? I'm going to say with some confidence that it has been said that way by him in a majority of his posts. At least the ones that actually talk about our playstyle.

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.

It's false as the playstyle is intended to be run. Of course there will be the occasional bad DM that misuses the playstyle. Since we are not talking about the rare exceptions to the rule, but rather the playstyles in general, it's false to portray our playstyle in the way [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] are portraying it.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

That would be player agency. The PCs don't actually need the map. The information on the map is out there in other ways. Often the players come up with ways that I did not think of, so are not a part of the DM options at all and are not party of any backstory, hidden or otherwise.

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.

"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.

So it really boils down to this. In order for your "choose your own adventure" characterization to be true, the DM must literally have every iota of everything in the entire world written down so that there isn't an ounce of possible improv that happens. That the only way for every option to be one that the DM has prepared for players to choose. If even one thing isn't prepared and the DM has to improvise, then the game is no longer a choose your own adventure.

 

[Maxperson]

If you think what I'm describing doesn't apply to you, then what makes you think I'm talking about your style of RPGing?

Because you have described my style of running things, and then followed up with a flawed characterization of what that actually means. It has demonstrated that you don't truly understand the playstyle, or if you do, you are deliberately mischaracterizing it.

We have give you many examples and explanations that show you that our playstyle is not "choose your own adventure", but you refuse to see it for some reason.

 

[Lanefan]

You ask this:

What other agency is at work here?

And then answer your own question with several variants of this:

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.

While in the process skipping over the fact that the moves made by the players ARE their agency - the moves they make or attempt to make are what determine the specific fiction they will encounter and (probably) interact with; which in turn gives them control over the fiction that ends up being shared, in terms of largely dictating what fiction will be shared at all.

You've referred numerous times to this as (paraphrased) modest agency at best, where I see it as much more significant. Now it's true there's DMs out there who deny this agency by running a hard railroad with no deviance allowed; for some groups this works fine but for most I posit it doesn't, and is thus rather uncommon.

I'm more interested in analysing function or consequence than purpose.

Though asking what worldbuilding is for kinda suggests it's the purpose you're after, or did I misinterpret the thread header?

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

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.

If you mean more than one DM switching off running the same game world and-or PCs, then mostly no. If you mean more than one DM playing in each other's games and having cross-links between our game worlds, then yes - this is what I do.

 

[pemerton]

The PCs don't actually need the map. The information on the map is out there in other ways. Often the players come up with ways that I did not think of, so are not a part of the DM options at all and are not party of any backstory, hidden or otherwise.

Unless I've misunderstood, you are referring to player moves that will trigger the GM to tell the players stuff that the GM has pre-authored.

You ask this: And then answer your own question with several variants of this:

While in the process skipping over the fact that the moves made by the players ARE their agency - the moves they make or attempt to make are what determine the specific fiction they will encounter and (probably) interact with; which in turn gives them control over the fiction that ends up being shared, in terms of largely dictating what fiction will be shared at all.

Would you agree that there is a significant difference between (i) choosing which of the GM's pre-authored bits of fiction to "interact" with (which is itself an unhelpful metaphor), and (ii) exercising agency over the content of the (non-preauthored) shared fiction?

 

[Maxperson]

Unless I've misunderstood, you are referring to player moves that will trigger the GM to tell the players stuff that the GM has pre-authored.

You probably misunderstood because you cut the sentence below out of that quote, and it shows that it also involves stuff that isn't pre-authored.

"Often the players come up with ways that I did not think of, so are not a part of the DM options at all and are not party of any backstory, hidden or otherwise."

You can't pre-author stuff you didn't think of.

 

[innerdude]

Another idea that I have had to come to grips with in this thread as well---is there a difference between "secret backstory" that negates player agency, and "scene frame maneuvering"? In other words, are there things happening in the background relevant to the player's current concerns and framing of the challenge which the PCs would not logically be aware of, but which could increase/decrease the possibility of success for the PCs?

Example: If you've framed the PCs into a scene where they need to go hunt down an otyugh in the city underground, it's not "secret backstory" for the current location of the otyugh to be unknown---that's part of the framing of the challenge. Or is it? Depending on the rationale for play, I could easily see this going both ways. If part of the challenge is to successfully navigate the sewers, putting the party's resources at stake, keeping the location "hidden" might be part of the challenge frame. But if a player declares, "I talk to several city sanitation workers and town guards to discover the last known points of activity for the otyugh," as a GM, I'd be hard pressed to negate that player declaration if the fortune mechanic indicated a success.

Example 2: A scene where you've framed the PCs into a challenge where they need to convince a local magistrate to divulge the location of a prisoner being held at a secret location. Let's say as GM, you've created a backstory for the magistrate that he's actually under a lot of pressure because of some gambling debts he needs to pay off, and if the PCs could take care of the bookie that's owed money, the magistrate will be willing to help them.

Is this considered secret backstory? Even if the PCs could discover that information through any number of strongly telegraphed means (various streetwise and information gathering checks). How and when does this cross over from "scene framing" to "secret backstory"? Is it still "secret" if the GM has provided ample means for discovery?

Is setting up a "hidden" victory condition at all like this a bad idea? If this were the ONLY method to success for the challenge, I think that would obviously be a bad idea. There would always be other avenues for the PCs to find the location of the prisoner---capture / interrogate the magistrate, steal government dispatches that indicate the location of the prison, hunt down a former prisoner who would know where it is---but for this particular challenge frame, the PCs' probability of success would be exponentially easier if they "discover" the "backstory" and bring it to bear against the magistrate.

Or is this something that should be left totally "open"? For example, should that backstory not exist at all until a player authors it? Something like, "I'm going to do some investigation around this magistrate, because I'm sure there's something shady about him I can use to pressure him---maybe, like, he's incurred some gambling debts." And then on a success, the player authored backstory is now true?

Or is this something that should be implicitly built into the scene frame by the GM? "Okay, so you need to find this prisoner because he has valuable information about [Goal X the Party Really Wants to Accomplish]. From your past success, you've been told that Magistrate Jones knows where the prison is, but you'll need to convince him to give that information to you. Some cursory "street investigation" into Magistrate Jones reveals that there may be a way for you to put the screws to him and get what you need."

There's some definite grey area here for me, but perhaps its the principle behind it---even if I as GM have "pre-authored" elements of a scene frame, those shouldn't be the only possibilities embedded into the frame, and I as GM should be open to improvising/updating/modifying elements based on PC action declaration and intent.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

I did answer the question asked, clearly and in the part you quote: it would serve no purpose. If you'd like to redirect to a different question, then, like you note, I point you to many previous points in this thread, some made by me, many by others, that address the questions you pose. I don't understand why you're trying to state what another poster actually meant when his statement was clear and unambiguous.

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.

So, to understand, you agree with me, and then say that DM facing games are more limited. I disagree, as the limits that have been discussed focus entirely on analysis from the assumptions that support player facing play. Yes, being able to author fiction into the narrative is more agency for authoring fiction, but you're also then limited to only being able to do so in response to DM framed crisis points. IE, you exercise more control over authorship at the expense of accepting that the DM will always frame you into crisis points. You lose control over pacing of the advance of the fiction (you can't choose to avoid crisis points, as this defeats the purpose of play) and you lose control over the stakes, as the crisis the DM presents carries inherent dangers. You also lose control over your character actions, as the DM can frame situations with assumptions of your character's actions and can frame failures as assumptions of your characters actions.

A good example of this is the engagement roll in Blades, the players define the general type of score they want and provide a specific (target, access point, etc) they want, but then the roll happens and the DM frames the scene by assuming character actions to fit the roll - the players never declare actions to reach this framing, they're placed there, in crisis, and have to react.

This kind of thing doesn't happen in the Gygaxian play proposed as exemplifying secret backstory -- the players always maintain complete agency over their character's actions, and control the fiction via that constant agency. This means many decisions are smaller in scope and stakes, and most generate new narration by the DM, but they do not lose agency of their character actions (except through explicit mechanics).

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.

If some people have red hair, I cannot say describe the general condition of hair as red. That is false. Just like you're bad experiences with a lousy DM (again, I am sorry you suffered) do not mean that the style employed is always what you experienced. This is, again, going from the specific to the general, something you should not do.

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.

Actually, comments by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] have strongly implied they see the style as always going bad. Darkbard with the 'temptation to use it more and more' comments and pemerton with the repeated characterization of the style as a 'choose-your-own-adventure' book.

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.

In order of asking:

Because it's a niche-game concept and it differs from the predominate style. Most of the scorn is due to how the proponents of the style often display it as superior or fixing the problems of the DM facing style. You usually don't do this, and so receive less pushback. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] often does this, I think because he's not very good at articulating his thoughts and actually does hold that his method delivers superior results, so it bleed through.

It doesn't. But [-]edition[/-] style wars are two sided. And, if you're challenging the zeitgeist, it pays to not do it in a way that comes across as superior. People tend to identify with their hobby to a great degree, so questioning how they enjoy their hobby seems like you're questioning them. If they play in a way you characterize as having less agency (implied bad thing) then you're saying that they like things that are bad. Is this rational? Not really, but it is how human people tend to think and entangle their emotions, especially today. I'm not the least affected by how you or someone else chooses to play, and I hope I've come across as someone interested in getting to actual discussion rather than the superficial handwaving that mostly goes on in this topic, but I'll admit I get sometimes a bit worked up not because my gaming choices are questioned but because I'm frustrated by bad rhetoric, which, sadly, is endemic to forum discussions.

As I've said, I think agency is largely similar in good examples of both styles. The kind of agency differs, but both styles give up agency in one arena to increase it in another. I think that's largely invisible to the proponents of each style because the agency they sacrifice is less important to them than the agency they retain. I don't think you'd consider it an impact to your agency to have the DM frame you into a situation that has to assume actions by your character, so long as those actions are at least nearly in alignment with your concepts and the purpose is to get to the action. I know other players that would howl at the DM assuming any action on the part of their character, even to get to the action. Similarly, I have a player that absolutely dislikes players being able to author fiction into the game, especially if that fiction affects them. For them, the world is a puzzle and they trust an impartial DM to set up that puzzle and then fairly adjudicate their solving of it. They like combat best. To them, giving up agency over authoring the fiction isn't a sacrifice, it's preferred. Clearly, this is not something [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] or you would accept, having a great deal of your enjoyment tied into the agency to create new fiction.

The concepts here really are chess vs checkers. They look superficially similar (same board, same number of pieces, same general objective, both as war surrogates), but they behave in ways that are very different. I think you can come up with checkers games that have some chess moves, and chess games that have some checkers moves, but there isn't a middle point (this is a change from my earlier thinking). I think it's a critical mistake to judge play in one with the metrics and assumptions of another. The similarities will fool you into thinking you can do this, so long as you ignore the crucial differences. And that's something people in general are good at doing: confirmation bias is a thing we all do and must guard against.

As someone that enjoys both playstyles, and tries to stretch themselves, this is the best framework for the discussion I can create. It doesn't denigrate or dismiss any style and I think it's a good tool that explains why we have so much trouble discussing these differences -- we're often mired in one way of thinking and try to fit new concepts into our existing conceptualization.