What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I can't. Saelorn blocked me awhile ago because I called him on his, well, I can't say without breaking the rules. Saelorn picks fights with a bunch of people, even those on his 'side' in this discussion. His posting style appears to be intentionally confrontational and dismissive. My board life has been improved by his blocking me. Because of this (and my experience with his arguments and style) I also scroll past any post that quotes him and ignore that discussion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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?

No, the DM doesn't decide the moves that are sufficient. The DM sets some of the fictional positioning required, yes, but not the moves. If the players take a hostage and ransom the map from the others, they can go get the map and the players never have to be in the study. There's a difference between establishing a bit of the necessary fictional positioning and dictating the only moves (action declaration + fictional positioning) that can achieve the goal.

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.

I'm rather confused as to why you decided it was helpful to fisk my example. Are you looking for a similar fisking of your examples where someone tells you the obivous things rather than focusing on bits that are interesting?

As for relating bits of pre-established backstory, I had no backstory as to how the orcs would respond to a parley attempt, as I did not make such notes or prepare for that eventuality. I set the minimum situation for a combat because that's the hard thing to prep in 5e, and the players chose to engage a different option than combat, so, at that point, I was 'off script' and reacting to player action declarations for the parley attempt.

"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.

Why is it not framing, as the players change their fictional positioning? How is this different from an invisible opponent? Note that this information was provided in response to action declarations that changed the characters' fictional positioning and wasn't used to negate any action declarations. In effect, the players declared an action that I agreed to without using the mechanics and then I introduced a new complication that they could then engage. I don't see how the fact that I wrote it down earlier would have changed anything. Also, the DC for spotting the trap was low enough that only extremely reckless action by the players would have failed to notice it well before it became a threat to them. It was literally set dressing -- a terrain feature on the encounter map to possibly provide dynamic play during combat by both sides and not a secret lurking to trap players. My 'notes' said that the traps were obvious to all who approached from a distance that would allow easy avoidance.

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 players set them with their goal of engaging in trade with the orcs. The orcs were known to be hostile creatures who fight at the drop of a hat, so the stakes were obvious: success moved towards the players trading with the orcs, failure moved towards a fight.

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

Hmm. I suppose if I wrote that down, sure, but I decided it on the spot. The orcs upped the ante because the players had failed a roll. The player was wondering if they should engage this action because it seemed fishy to them, so they made an insight check and the result was that the orc was pushing for individual gain in classic bully manner, a result that was presented because the check succeeded. A failure would have provided a different answer, likely that the orc required a bribe in order for the parley to continue.

Likewise.

Yup.

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.

Yup.

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.

I'm not sure what you think the difference is. The players established there was a warboss and that they could achieve their goals if they found him. I agreed with this and provided some new, made up in response, fiction to do so that also pointed to new challenges.

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.

Nope. The characters were aware of the orcs in the keep and could see them, so it was part of the framing. The stealth check was made specifically to keep the orcs in the keep from noticing the characters. The check failed, and the orcs investigated. The players had choices on what to do and chose to remain hidden, which, since it didn't counter the orc move to investigate, escalated the situation as the orcs moved closer and may now discover the hidden characters.

"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.

It was more transition narration to move to the new scene of the dungeons below the keep. I didn't play this out, I narrated it.

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?

The traps were initially to stop intruders, but the reasons for the traps changed due to player comments to separating the orcs from each other. The players changed the fictional reasons for the traps to exist at all through their play.

The stairs were blocked in my notes, yes, as I had also prepared an encounter map of the dungeons below the keep and the inhabitants were not allies of the orcs, so it made sense to have a barricade between the two. The fictional reason for the barricade changed, even though the existence of it did not.

The entire point, I thought, of your complaints about secret backstory was that is was pre-authored ficiton and it could be used to thwart player action declarations. Backstory that was presented as framing, even if prepared, and made known to the players was acceptable. Yet you've repeatedly commented that the notes employed, despite not thwarting player actions or even being secret (almost everything was known to players and the few things that weren't were trivially discovered and made known before having an impact), are pre-authored, secret backstory. It seems your goalposts are shifting, but I'm not sure as you may have just failed to make your points clear.

If I had to guess, what you mean is 'secret backstory is stuff the DM does that prevents players from introducing new fiction.' I say this as you seem very dismissive of play that doesn't have the players telling the DM new fiction. That's coherent, but not in line with many of your previous statements -- or, rather, your previous statements do not say this but also don't preclude it
.

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?

They have staked their achieving their goal of establishing peaceful trade with the orcs on finding the fate of the warboss. I say fate because they now believe that the warboss was killed by the inhabitants of the dungeon after having to retreat from a fight was was going poorly for them (mostly due to very bad dice). They have stated they believe the warboss was killed, but plan to return to the dungeon after resting to recover any remains, as they want to follow through with their promise to find the warboss. Since I had no notes on the warboss, and had not decided his fate, I'm planning to go with the warboss indeed being killed by the inhabitants below and his body recoverable once they overcome the challenge currently blocking them. The orcs have already agreed to these stakes, so I'm not going to renege that. Not that I considered doing so at all, that's not my style to renege on deals established in play unless the players take actions that cause such (like being themselves untrue to the deal and that being known to the other party), but I wanted to make it clear.

 

[innerdude]

The entire point, I thought, of your complaints about secret backstory was that is was pre-authored ficiton and it could be used to thwart player action declarations. Backstory that was presented as framing, even if prepared, and made known to the players was acceptable. Yet you've repeatedly commented that the notes employed, despite not thwarting player actions or even being secret (almost everything was known to players and the few things that weren't were trivially discovered and made known before having an impact), are pre-authored, secret backstory. It seems your goalposts are shifting, but I'm not sure as you may have just failed to make your points clear.

If I had to guess, what you mean is 'secret backstory is stuff the DM does that prevents players from introducing new fiction.' I say this as you seem very dismissive of play that doesn't have the players telling the DM new fiction. That's coherent, but not in line with many of your previous statements -- or, rather, your previous statements do not say this but also don't preclude it.

I think my post earlier, talking about example "scene frames," was very much looking at this is the same way. It's a very difficult line to draw to say that NOTHING can be secret from the players if it hinders their ability to author fiction. Even for me, someone who WANTS more player-driven play, that seems extreme. My example with the magistrate and the hidden prisoner was very much posing this question---is it okay to have the "hidden" gambling debt backstory for the magistrate, if it's trivially knowable with any sort of intelligent effort put forth by the players?

I think in that case, assuming that it only affects the ease of success and doesn't thwart success entirely, and as long as there are multiple other options available to the players---including ones they might author themselves---I don't know that simply having some "hidden" element in a scene frame is a bad thing.

It would become a "bad thing" if 1) the PCs' success/failure either solely or greatly hinged on discovering that element, 2) the GM was actively limiting potential success if the PCs' action declarations weren't in line with the hidden element, and 3) the GM was unwilling to modify the fiction to accommodate input from the players that might make the action resolution even more satisfying.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think my post earlier, talking about example "scene frames," was very much looking at this is the same way. It's a very difficult line to draw to say that NOTHING can be secret from the players if it hinders their ability to author fiction. Even for me, someone who WANTS more player-driven play, that seems extreme. My example with the magistrate and the hidden prisoner was very much posing this question---is it okay to have the "hidden" gambling debt backstory for the magistrate, if it's trivially knowable with any sort of intelligent effort put forth by the players?

I think in that case, assuming that it only affects the ease of success and doesn't thwart success entirely, and as long as there are multiple other options available to the players---including ones they might author themselves---I don't know that simply having some "hidden" element in a scene frame is a bad thing.

It would become a "bad thing" if 1) the PCs' success/failure either solely or greatly hinged on discovering that element, 2) the GM was actively limiting potential success if the PCs' action declarations weren't in line with the hidden element, and 3) the GM was unwilling to modify the fiction to accommodate input from the players that might make the action resolution even more satisfying.

I agree with a lot of this.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

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 @hawkeyefan and @Lanefan and others are not usually playing this way.

Not a lot in the past couple of decades. I offered to share campaigns that weren't specifically focused on environmental exploration, but none of the other players wanted to step up to the GM seat.

<snip>

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.

I agree it is both simpler and more abstract than the real world. You have fewer points of input which makes the ones you do receive much more important and seemingly meaningful. Which means information contrary to a pattern or relationship (either GM introduced red herrings, mischaracterised colour, or player-introduced events) also has an out-sized effect on player pattern detection. It is best if the GM strives to include other influences in his prep to limit his own prejudices; I tend to add a few adventures written by outsiders very now and again.

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 @hawkeyefan's drum that he likes to play, and I understand his point.

.

It can be hard particularly when the players are dealing with bits and pieces and do not yet understand how different aspects interrelate. The PCs are concentrating on the identity of the serial killer and a player does something that makes their receptionist take a vacation as a lark and suddenly the murder timeline breaks. Was that deviation planned? Is it reacting to something the PCs did or is the timing coincidental?

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.

We've done disjointed follow-on campaigns too. They tend to work well because one GM is in charge for the whole arc. The campaigns I was discussing had multiple consecutive GMs -- we swapped pretty much every adventure taking control of the current state of the world as it was known by the table at the time of transition. Thee were a lot of twists and counter-twists in the region's politics and known NPCs as the GMs played push-me-pull-you with the world.

 

[Nagol]

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.

It could easily be secret back story because although you've framed the scene of the PCs trying to hunt down the otyugh, you know there isn't one. The PCs are meant to find <insert something of great personal relevance to one PC> in the sewers -- the stated purpose is just a rationale to get hem in the appropriate setting for the reveal.

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?

Absolutely this is secret backstory. You assigned goals and pressure points that the players are unaware of that should guide their interactions during the scene. That the players can discover the story is immaterial Players can discover almost any part of secret backstory in many games. But, the PCs can't push on his pathological fear of spiders, his medical debt, his doting on his pretty niece, or any other personality tic they can dream up because you've already assigned back story to the NPC.

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.

I don't think setting up hidden or initially secret victory conditions is bad because I don't think secret backstory is bad. I think setting up "auto-fail" gotchas that are not well advertised (such as 'any Intimidation attempt will auto-fail and cause other bad things to happen...' are bad regardless of style in action. For player-led games, the PCs also "discover" secrets in the NPCs that they can leverage... they are just the instigators of establishing those secret while playing the scene or they were established in a prior scene and that people remembered.

There is no 'bad' or 'should' here. There are styles at play. One of those styles takes advantage of world building as part of prep; another does not.

 

[Nagol]

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. @Nagol 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

<snip>

Can secret back story curtail action declaration? No. But it can cause an action declaration to not require a fortune mechanic to resolve in a way unanticipated by the player.

You know what actually curtails action declaration? Scene framing. If you don't want the PCs to delve underwater and look for a shipwreck, frame them away from the ocean and into a tense encounter with the local baron in his keep. Ta-da! Possible action declaration curtailed! If they never get back to the beach, the delve will never happen. Before the anguished cries of "That would never happen!" occur, of course it does. Probably as often as secret backstory is used as a club to force players onto the straight and narrow path the DM conceives as appropriate. Both turn a decent tool into a weapon against player choice.

Now, can secret back story offer value other than controlling the resolution of certain declarations? I think so.

• It provides guidance for the GM as to how entities will react to stimuli generated by the players via assigned motivations, action constraints, and unexpected abilities.
• It provides a rationale as to why the situation is as it is that can help the GM faithfully and consistently adjudicate attempts to alter the situation.
• It can provide a mystery or puzzle for the players to notice and solve.
• It can provide the GM with inspiration for how to prevent the game from stalling e.g. a form of fail-forward so the answer isn't always "Ninjas attack!"

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

The GM's judgment. Why MUST it conflict with what the player wants? Why can't the GM have an idea in his mind ahead of time, with some ideas about what can or may happen, but not committing to anything until the players have interacted with the idea?

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.

The NPC might be a villain in the GM's mind. But the PCs are free to ally with him or oppose him...whatever they want. I don't think that pre-authoring anything means you must commit to it 100% with no ability to deviate.

I feel like the same question could be asked of framing. What's to stop the GM from framing things that have nothing to do with what the players want? Certainly a GM could do that....it just would likely be seen as a contradiction to the goals of play.

Same thing.

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.

Yes, the GM has agency in my examples. I am not offering an example that fits your style. I am attempting to offer you an answer to your question. To explain why some of us find GM driven elements useful.

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.

Yes. This is me offering an answer to your question. I don't place the same level of value that you place on player agency. I like it, and I prefer it in most instances, but I do not think it must be ubiquitous.

So you asked what is worldbuilding for.....here's something to consider. As with most things, there may need to be some consideration given in evaluating it. "Hm is this worth the loss in player agency that will result?" I think your answer is clearly "No", and that's fine.

But I don't think you wanted an echo chamber. And I don't think that your preference for another style somehow eliminates your ability to understand why a different style might appeal to other players. For me, having some predetermined elements may be worth a reduction in player agency in some ways.

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.

Sure. I'm just simply not as concerned with that limit as you are. Or at least, I'm not always concerned. There are always some constraints on what the players can have their characters do, so in a case like you describe where you take two stories and tie them together...I wouldn't be averse to that at all. Especially if it was still in line with what the players had established as what they want for their characters.

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.

I feel like you aren't analyzing the technique at all. You don't like the technique, which is fine, but then you don't seem to ever even allow the possibility that the technique has anything to offer. And you insist upon adding other preferences you hold as being requirements for the technique to even be considered.

So maybe we should take a moment to reset....to look at the question you posed in the OP again, and ask it of you. What is worldbuilding for? Has your view changed in any way at all? Or do you feel exactly as you did at the start? Has anything said here by anyone over the 100 pages made a difference in your opinion?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The thread title really says it all. But here's some context to explain why I'm asking that question.

In classic D&D, the dungeon was a type of puzzle. The players had to map it, by declaring moves (literally) for their PCs. The players, using their PCs as vehicles, had to learn what was in there: this was about inventory - having enough torches, 10' poles, etc - and about game moves too - searching for secret doors, checking ceilings and floors, and so on. And finally, the players had to try and loot it while either avoiding or defeating the monsters guarding the treasures and wandering around the place - this is what the combat mechanics were for.

The game is something of a cross between a wargame and a complex refereed maze. And *worldbuilding* is all about making the maze. I get that.

But most contemporary D&D isn't played in the spirit of classic D&D: the players aren't trying to map a maze; when it comes to searching, perception and the like there is often an emphasis on PC skills (perception checks) rather than player game moves; there is no clear win condition like there used to be (ie getting the gold and thereby accruing XP).

In the classic game, alignment (and related aspects of character motivation) become components in, and establish the parameters of, the puzzle: if I find a prisoner in the dungeon, should I be rescuing her/him (after all, my PC is lawful and so I might suffer a GM-imposed penalty if I leave a helpless person behind)? Or is s/he really a succubus or medusa in disguise, trying to take advantage of my lawful foibles? This is one reason why divination items like wands of enemy detection, ESP medallions and the like are so prominent in classic D&D - they're "game components" which, once obtained, allow a clever player to make better moves and so increase his/her chance of winning the game. And their function relies upon the GM having already written the dungeon, and having already decided what the truth is about the prisoner.

But in most contemporary play, character motivations (and alignment etc) aren't treated purely instrumentally in that waym as puzzle components and parameters. I'm expected to develop my character, and to care about his/her motivations, for their own sake. This is part of the standard picture of what it is to be a good RPGer.

So, given these difference between typical contemporary play and "classic" play, what is world building for?

And here's a final thought, in spoiler blocksbecause it's a little bit tangential:[sblock]In this blog post, Luke Crane has interesting (and very enthusiastic) things to say about playing Moldvay Basic. He also asserts that "the beautiful economy of Moldvay's basic rules are rapidly undermined by the poorly implemented ideas of the Expert set." I think at least part of what he has in mind there is that Expert-style wilderness adventuring doesn't establish the same clear framework for play. There is no clear maze, and so no clear parameters for establishing puzzles to solve in avoiding or defeating the monsters while getting the gold.

I see this contrast, between Basic and Expert - dungeon crawling compared to wilderness exploration - as raising the same question as this thread: what is world building for once we're no longer playing a dungeon crawling, puzzle-solving game?[/sblock]

I'm not sure I agree with your description of classic D&D. I never played through the BECMI system (although I owned all of them and the adventures), so if the presentation was so focused on the dungeon and only the dungeon, that was a later development and I'm not sure I would consider it the "classic" game. If anything, OD&D > AD&D is what I'd consider classic. In any event, I'll have to check out that post...

Nor would I agree worldbuilding is about "making the maze."

It might seem early D&D was focused on the dungeon, but even from the earliest TSR and third party releases (like Judges' Guild) it went beyond that. Gary and TSR early on thought that published adventures wouldn't sell, since the DM can just make their own. Even more when talking about a campaign world. That is, world-building was specifically in the domain of the DM, and not the publisher. This aspect of the game might not have been as obvious to those purchasing it, but it would be explicitly spelled out in adventures like B1 "In Search of the Unknown." For example:

"Most good dungeons (and indeed, entire game campaigns) rest upon a firm basis of interesting background and "history" as set for the players by the game moderator, or Dungeon Master."

That's the most basic part of worldbuilding. Setting the dungeon in a world. The first published adventure, Temple of the Frog in the Blackmoor supplement essentially provided a template that was copied by DMs thousands of times over. There was nearly two pages of background, setting the story, and a bit of worldbuilding. The rules already spoke of a campaign, where the characters would explore the world around them in a continuous fashion, and new characters would explore the same world of that DM. That is, if you were playing in Gary's campaign you were in the World of Greyhawk, and in Dave's campaign, Blackmoor. The original D&D set had rules for dungeon and wilderness adventures, including keeps, castles, etc.

And the earliest adventures accentuated this serial nature of adventures within a known world, although the thrust at that time was still for DMs to create their own world. So I think worldbuilding has always been the intended domain of the DM, and what changed was that people began to play in published worlds more and more. If anything, I think that D&D has moved away from worldbuilding over the years. I started with the Holmes Basic Set and a Monster Manual. Of course, like many, many others my initial adventure was B2 Keep on the Borderlands, and like so many other DMs, that was my template for how to build a campaign. You start with a place in the world, an outpost in the wilderness. A Keep. And the first adventure your first characters take is, to find the adventure. It's a wilderness adventure, with several written encounters, and explicit instructions to make your own as a DM (and even has another dungeon "complex" indicated on the map specifically for the DM's use). The PCs are in search of the Caves of Chaos, but they don't know where it is.

In fact, looking at OD&D, and how I, at least, learned to play in the late '70s, I'd characterize the spirit of the game as:

DM: Dungeon/Campaign/Worldbuilding
Players: Exploration.

That is, the DM was there to provide the place to explore (however big or small), and the players/characters purpose was to explore. Treasure was a goal to encourage exploration, and monsters, traps, and tricks the challenges. Combat was one way to overcome challenges. But most dungeons had plenty of non-combat challenges too.

But what specifically characterized D&D as unique is that it was designed to be a campaign. Wargames were about the current battle. This army against that one, and the next game is a different one. Sometimes you'd have a campaign, such as playing through a series of battles in WWII. But eventually the game and campaign would end.

But D&D was different - you had a character. And after you finished one adventure, that same character would go on another adventure. And when somebody new joined, they would go on adventures with that character, and in the same world. And when your character died, a new one would enter the same campaign. And players would leave, but the campaign continued. New players joined, and the campaign continued. The game itself has no end.

Now, the DM is mostly viewed as a referee. They have always been the referee of course, but their creative input is often more limited. They utilize a published world, or part of it, to run a published adventure. And since the APs tend to level a character from start to finish, there isn't a continuous campaign, you build new characters for the next AP.

Now, at least from what I see on the forums and many local groups, I'd say the focus is:

DM: Referee
Players: (Mechanical) Character Designers

The focus of players has shifted to Character Design. That is, designing a cool character, with cool abilities, and leveraging the rules to make that character shine...mechanically. It's not about their place in the world, it's about them. More importantly, more options that directly engage the rules. If it doesn't have a mechanical benefit, then it's not necessary.

Now, players expect to be able to use any published material for their character, leveraging online "build guides" on how to maximize the mechanical aspects of character building. There are so many choices, and they don't want to make "trap" decisions, nor do they quietly accept the DM "nerfing" their choice by disallowing or changing a rule. In the past, the DM designed the world and the campaign, deciding the races, classes, modifications, and the rest of it. While there were always optional rules, in AD&D, and especially 2e, the DM could decide entire rule systems. This even extends to the rules themselves. Where once were there not only bonuses, but penalties, and everything was designed to be a trade-off, now there are complaints that a given race/class combination is "unplayable" because the ability score bonus is for the wrong stat.

Instead of the Bilbo Baggins model, the modern RPG character is the Harry Potter model. Destined to be better than the average person in the world from birth.

The focus shift, I think, started with marketing. TSR figured out that for every game there's one DM and 4-8 players. And there might be ancillary players beyond that in a given campaign. Write a book for the DM and you sell one per table. Write it for the players, and you might sell 4 or 5. In the TSR years, each book (and often in many places through the book) were disclaimers informing players that this is all cool stuff, but you can only use it if your DM agrees. Ask them first.

WotC again, I think, looked at this from a marketing perspective. First, there were too many different rules, and despite the fact that they were all supposed to work together, they didn't. But I think there was a bigger issue at play. If the book you're selling says "you can only use this book if your DM says it's OK" discourages players to pick them up. Publish everything as canon, with optional rules scattered within, means that every book has something for the players that they can use.

Want another sign that world-building or characters engaging in the world isn't the focus anymore. Questions like, "what do I spend gold on since I can't buy magic items in 5e?"

Let's think through that a bit. First, who said you can't buy magic items anymore. If I'm playing a 3e or 4e game, and we convert to 5e, and we're in the same campaign, why are magic items suddenly not for sale anymore? Why did the world change? Just because the rules don't spell out a specific system for buying and selling magic items?

It's character-building, at least on a mechanical level. If the character was being built on an actual character level, then they would have goals, likes, perhaps some debts or responsibilities, and all sorts of other reasons to spend gold. Many characters in our campaigns retire after a few adventures, because they've gained more riches than they could have imagined, and literally buy the farm and find a nice girl (guy) to settle down with and have a family. And then they sometimes un-retire when a reason presents itself. In the meantime, they act as a direct sort of world-building because not only do the characters know this NPC, but so do the players.

If world-building was the current focus of the game, then the answer to the question would be obvious. "The same thing everybody else spends gold on." But world-building is clearly not the focus when that question is asked. Buying a keep, throwing a birthday party and inviting the whole of Hobbiton, getting fancy armor that cost 10 times more than is practical because you can have your plate gilded in gold, paying tithes, etc. But none of that helps you in the next combat, and in this world people are only focused on work (adventuring) 24x7.

It's either the 15 MWD, or, "but the PHB doesn't say you actually have to sleep to take a long rest." The point, once again, is that the focus is on the mechanics and the rules, not on the world and the characters as people within it.

In my opinion 2e was, paradoxically, the height of world-building in D&D, and the cause of its demise. With books like Leaves from the Inn of the Lost Home and Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogue, not to mention the Volo's Guides, the bulk of releases for the world were fluff. Things that helped flesh out a public campaign world, but also served as inspiration for those that made their own world. Because, my world should have unique kinds of cheese too. And Ale. And Trees. And songs, legends, and recipes.

The problem was, it also got to the point where most DMs couldn't design such a richly detailed world. It's easier to hop aboard the Forgotten Realms train than to try and design it all yourself. I did, and then I proceeded to modify it heavily. All that is great, except that by the time 3e came around, the content shifted. Every single book had to have new playable races, new spells, new magic items, new prestige classes, new monsters, etc. Of course in terms of the spells, items and monsters many were old monsters updated. But the races and classes, well that was new. We have more options in the quest for the perfect character build. Character creation grew to be extremely complex. No more sitting down at a new table and rolling up a character in a few minutes.

Even the complexity of the game has an impact. There are more rules for the DM to know. Way more. And that's less time world-building. Combats became complex, hour-or-more-long set pieces. Instead of combat just being a hurdle on the way to more exploration, it became the focus of much of the game. If there wasn't a battle mat for it, it didn't exist. Not only less world-building, but less time interacting with the world. The more complex the game has become, the more the players and the DM interact with the rules and the mechanics, instead of the world that the DM may or may not have created.

This, of course, is not limited to D&D. Indie games often push worldbuilding to the side (don't design anything that doesn't come into play, or even until it comes into play), or takes it into a cooperative approach, giving the players a larger hand in the process. Again, neither are bad/wrong/fun, but they do provide a very different experience. These can still be strung together into a campaign, maintaining the established lore from earlier games. But in many cases the games discourage this, particularly as new players come into the game because it would limit their creative input.

Some of it is to free up time for the DM, to avoid spending hours prepping for a game, only to learn that all of that prep went to waste. Here's the thing, though. Good DM prep work never goes to waste - if you're world-building. Building the world for the characters to explore, the people, the cultures, the ecological interactions of monsters and such, then you provide a framework not only for exploration, but for better DM improvisation. Instead of prepping (in great detail) this place or that, we look back to the brilliance of the early approach to dungeon and world design. Look back to early dungeons, or the Judges' Guild City State of the Invincible Overlord. There isn't a lot of detail, just a sentence or two with the basics.

To me, good world-building is to identify things that are in the area, and their typical behaviors. For example, a displacer beast has a range of 40 miles, hunts in a small pack much like a lion, then you have some information to work with when you roll a random encounter (or decide there should be one here). If you determine that orcs don't have a monetary-based economy, finding things that you have to carry and can't hit things with useless, then you know that food, shelter, and weapons are better negotiating tactics when confronting an orc. World building isn't about placing every last tree and rock, it's about making the world come alive.

Let me be clear. There is nothing wrong with wanting to engage in the rules and build the perfect character. It's a lot of fun. And the game (and RPGs) have evolved into games that a great many people like. I think that 5e has done a lot of simplify the rules, and bring the game back to that exploration, if not entirely to the campaign/world-building roots. I think that AL is more in tune with the campaign approach, with shorter adventures that tie together, but also tie into a greater world where you can have a group of characters and choose which character you want to use for a given adventure. What it often lacks is a cohesiveness and the ties into the greater world, since there isn't really any "between adventures" periods. But that's understandable due to the format. The other thing that seems to be on the upswing is the exploration style of play. Tomb of Annihilation, Out of the Abyss, and Storm King's Thunder in particular accentuate this aspect well, I think.

 

[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.

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.

Those "ways that I did not think of" appear to be ways of getting "the information on the map [, which] is out there in other ways".

Which is to say, unlesss I have misunderstood, you appear to be referring to player moves that will trigger the GM to tell the players stuff that the GM has pre-authored.