What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Lanefan]

I imagine I would have a great time playing at Pemerton's and Lanefan's respective tables.

You'd be welcome any time, though I realize it'd be a fair schlepp to get from Illinois to here each week for the games.

 

[pemerton]

What @pemerton seems to be questioning is the probably more common approach of creating a setting--of some degree of depth--before hand, or using a setting like the Forgotten Realms, in which there is much less "primal flux." There is always some, always Terra Incognita, and even if there isn't much, it is intrinsic to the game that the DM can make the setting their own.

But @pemerton doesn't seem to like the idea that the DM has superior or overriding authorship over the players. I haven't posted much in the last year or two, but this is the same underlying agenda he's been pushing for years. Nothing wrong with that, but he (you) does seem to be advocating for it as the Right Way to Play D&D.

Two things.

(1) THis isn't a D&D thread. It's a general RPG thread in the general RPG forum.

(2) The OP doesn't advocate anything. It asks what worldbuilding is for. Some answers have been provided. I'm intrested in what yours is.

I think the reason for world-building is primarily to provide depth and a sense of meaning, realness and context to game play.

Does this depend on the GM doing it? Or can it also be achieved by the players doing it?

Perhaps the most important difference between fiction and RPGs, in this context at least, is that in RPGs the players are--to varying degrees--co-authors of the story. They have agency, even if they play in a non-pemertonian railroad campaign.

Although it's not direcgtly on-topic, I'm also curious as to what sort of "non-pemertonian" campaign you classify as a railroad.

if nothing is true about the hero until it is written then by extension nothing is true about my game world until it is written...but guess what? It's written. In more or less very broad strokes, to be sure, but it's still written.

The main difference is that everyone can, if they wish, read the whole novel and find out what becomes of the hero; where in an RPG the players have to - to use your phrase - play to find out what becomes of their own characters.

OK, but when they play, are you saying that they learn what the GM has decided will happen to their PCs? Eg they're goinhg to learng that their PCs can't find the map in the study (because the GM already decided it's somewhere else).

 

[Sebastrd]

Does this depend on the GM doing it? Or can it also be achieved by the players doing it?

If the players are doing it, what exactly is the GM supposed to be doing?

You've already answered your own question upthread. Worldbuilding is a device for the GM to keep his/her storytelling consistent.

 

[pemerton]

At my table, players have very different expectations about what level of creative input is expected of them dependent on whether we are playing my 5e D&D campaign or our Ars Magica campaign.

That makes sense. At my table, the players recognise that Burning Wheel imposes different demands on a player from (say) Cortex+ Heroic.

A player of Fate can do that with a declaration though it would be an odd choice of aspect to assign.

I agree.

I'm not saying it could never come up or be relevant. But I don't think it's a core case of player generated content in RPGing.

very quickly other products like T1 Village of Hommlet or The Keep on the Borderlands were released, which much attention on the setting and the people. Given Gary wrote and put The Keep on the Borderlands in his Basic Set for new players, it sure looks like he intended people to consider the region above the dungeon and interact with NPCs.

NPCs don't contrast with dungeons - they're present in dungeons as much as elsewhere.

The wilderness in B2 is not a departure from dungeon design, though - it's really an instance of it (confined in exploratory/spacial terms, with encounters established and placed on the map in advance). And the Keep is also primarily a source of puzzle-type encounters (eg the Priest in the tavenr).

T1 is a different sort of case which was discussed a bit upthread. It's not clear to me what Gygax intended to be done with the Village (as opposed to the Moat House, where I think the intended use is quite clear).

Going the other way, in a game that has a take-20 mechanic all they need to do is search every room using take-20 and they'll find the map right where the DM put it.

As for retries, 1e doesn't like them but some other systems are fine with them.

Yes. Different mechanics generate different play experiences. I don't think that's controversial. My point is that, when you assert "If the players can find the map in the study on a high enough check, therefore there is no obstacle to them finding it because they can just keep checking" you are making assumptions about the permissibility of retries that aren't true in many RPGs.

The next step is to realise that games which permit the players to generate content by way of checks probablyi have ways of managing retries. (Eg Burning Wheel has a "let it ride" rule. In Cortex+ Heroic, the Doom Pool grows over time and once it has at least 2d12 in it the GM can spend those dice to end the scene. 4e has no formal "no retries" rule, but at one point Stephen Radley-McFarland posted a blog on the WotC site suggesting that such a rule would be a good addition to the system.

That's not a failure, in my view. It's a success (they were trying to find the map, they found the map, therefore success) with a DM-forced complication.

Failure narration in this example always has to somewhere include "you don't find the map". It's black and white: you either find the map (success), or you don't (failure).

Now it's of course possible to succeed in finding the map and still have further headaches to deal with e.g. "yes you've found it (success) - you can see where it is - but it's embedded in the wall behind 6" of glassteel. Now what do you do?"

Well, here's pne way to think about it.

Suppose the PCs have been tasked by some other being, tell me where the map is! Then finding the map in an unbreakable case; or finding it and then setting it alight, it a success. The PCs (and their players) have what they want, namely, knowledge of the map's location.

But suppose - as I was assuming in my example - that the PC's want the map so they can use it to get somewhere else. Then learning the location of the map but failing to gain the desired information is a failure.

This is why you can't adjudicate in a "say 'yes' or roll the dice", "fail forward" manner without knowing the intention that lies behind the task. Hence why the basic maxim for action resolution in Burning Wheel is "intent and task". And hence why, in 4e, the DMG advises the GM adjudicating an action declaration in a skill challenge, to get clear on what a player is trying to achieve by using a particular skill in the challenge (see pp 74, 75).

There's two* mechanical ways of arriving at a narration** of what is in effect a partial success e.g. you find the map but it's behind 6" of glassteel, or you find it but immediately set it on fire by accident. One is fail-forward, where in effect a failure is often mitigated into a partial success. The other is (and if anyone has a better term for this, I'm all ears) more like succeed-backward, where it's a success that's mitigated by other circumstances rather than a failure - which remains a flat failure. Of these I prefer the second approach as - and again I can't think of the best term for this - it in effect makes the game a bit "harder".

And why is this good? Because without some failure and frustration now and then to measure the successes against the successes become ho-hum, and then become expected.

Huh? Failuore will result from failed checks. You don't need to turn successful checks into failures as well!

I don't demand the "Lanefan method" (whatever that is), but when I see my and many others' style of gaming being slighted - and some posters here are very good at slighting something and implying it's wrong without actually coming out and saying so - then yes, I'm going to push back.

I didn't slight anything. I asked "What is worldbuilding for?" If the answer is, it's for X, but there seem to be other ways of achieving X, then it's natural to ask - so why achieve X that way rather than some other way.

I should also note that you're rather fond of telling me that my game is "Schroedinger's world", that PCs never/rarely fail and hence the play is very easy, etc. I've never taken it that these are intended to be compliments! If you think I'm wrong in supposing that some of your worldbuilding is a way of imposing the GM's vision of the game onto play, then tell me why I'm wrong. If you think I'm right about that (eg [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] seems to, as best I can tell), and think that's a good thing and hence one of the things that worldbuilding is for, tell me why it's good.

If asking the question is per se a slight - well, I don't get that at all.

 

[pemerton]

You've already answered your own question upthread. Worldbuilding is a device for the GM to keep his/her storytelling consistent.

That's not my answer - I use other methods to maintain consistency. (Eg a mixture of memory and note-taking as play occurs.)

If the players are doing it, what exactly is the GM supposed to be doing?

Well, that might depend on the game.

In BW, Cortex+ and 4e, the GM frames scenes and narrates consequences. And when NPCs/monsters need to make action declarations in the context of action resolution, the GM makes those.

In Classic Traveller, all of the above is true, but the narration of consequences is often less important (because in many cases the resolution mechanics dictate particular consequences). And the GM has the responsibility for overseeing the dice-rolling processes for introducing content (encounter rolls, world generation, etc) which are a big part of that system. (But not a part of BW or Cortex+ Heroic at all, and at best optional in 4e and not used by me.)

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]

Ron Edwars has a couple of interesting posts about the role of ingame time in play:

Metagame time . . . refers to time-lapse among really-played scenes: can someone get to the castle before someone else kills the king; can someone fly across Detroit before someone else detonates the Mind Bomb. Metagame time isn't "played," but its management is a central issue for scene-framing and the outcome of the session as a whole.

in-game time . . is a causal constraint . . . it constrains metagame time. In-game time at the fine-grained level (rounds, seconds, actions, movement rates) sets incontrovertible, foundation material for making judgments about hours, days, cross-town movment, and who gets where in what order. I recommend anyone who's interested to the text of DC Heroes for some of the most explicit text available on this issue throughout the book.

[An example of adjudicating in this fashion - ie prioritising in-game time as a constraint on "metagame time" and hence scene-framing and the possibilities for action declaration]:

The time to traverse town with super-running is deemed insufficient to arrive at the scene, with reference to distance and actions at the scene, such that the villain's bomb does blow up the city. (The rules for DC Heroes specifically dictate that this be the appropriate way to GM such a scene).​

Would this be one possible example of your idea of world-building setting constraints and providing levers?

 

[Sebastrd]

In BW, Cortex+ and 4e, the GM frames scenes and narrates consequences.

Then let's discuss this in terms of 4E. We'll assume, since it seems to be your preferred method, that the GM has accomplished zero worldbuilding. How do you frame the opening scene?

 

[Jester David]

The wilderness in B2 is not a departure from dungeon design, though - it's really an instance of it (confined in exploratory/spacial terms, with encounters established and placed on the map in advance). And the Keep is also primarily a source of puzzle-type encounters (eg the Priest in the tavern).

I'm not sure what your point is.

Are the first four years of published D&D modules somehow more important than the 35+ years that came after?
Are the modules that Gygax decided to publish somehow more important than how he ran his games? Gygax himself created a vast world beyond the dungeons, only a fraction of which we saw in the Greyhawk folio, as Gygax declined to share his campaign's secrets in favour of letting DMs create their own.

I'm not convinced Gygax or the original modules placed that much stock in "solving puzzles". Early modules really seemed to encourage creative thought. Problems were presented and it was up to the players to device a solution. Some possible solutions were codified, but I doubt someone as imaginative as Gygas would limit himself to such hard options.
But that's tangential to the world. The two concepts have zero relation. Regardless of the nature of the puzzles and problems of the original few levels of the dungeon, there still needed to be a world above the dungeon for the players to sell their treasure. Otherwise.. what was the point?

 

[Mercurius]

.

(1) THis isn't a D&D thread. It's a general RPG thread in the general RPG forum.

Uh, sure, but you were referencing "classic D&D" in the original post. But no matter.

(2) The OP doesn't advocate anything. It asks what worldbuilding is for. Some answers have been provided. I'm intrested in what yours is.

Does this depend on the GM doing it? Or can it also be achieved by the players doing it?

I'm not just talking about this thread. But again, no matter. Instead, I'll reply to your question (which I kind of already did, but....no matter).

No, it does not depend upon the GM doing it. It depends upon what you want to accomplish, as well as what the spoken and unspoken agreements are.

Most campaigns I've played in or heard of have the agreement that the GM does the "behind scenes" production work, sets the stage, and the players act within it but don't do much "production" other than through character creation and, perhaps, coming up with their own backstory--usually within parameters given by the GM.

There are, obviously, other ways to play, other agreements, other approaches.

But let's look at the second question--that is, "can it also be achieved by the players doing it?"

Yes, it can be achieved. But having the players do it has a rather different result than if the GM does it. I'm not saying it is a better or worse result, just different. And from my experience, the expectations and even desires of most players is that they do not have much say in building the world in which they interact. The general assumption I see most often is that players show up to interact in a world and story of the GM's design, or at least one that the GM has bought and read.

I see a spectrum. On one side is a novel. You read the novel, which is pre-written with a singular story that the reader cannot diverge from. It is, in a sense, a complete "railroad" in that you (the reader) cannot change the course of the story. On the other side of the spectrum is a blank slate; you can to do whatever you want, sort of like Harold and his purple crayon (if you remember the children's book).

Between the two poles are variations from choose-your-own-adventure, adventure paths, classic D&D modules, hex-crawls, etc. In a way it is how power is distributed among the participants. In a novel the author has complete power (although if you are a writer you might protest at this and say that sometimes the story just takes control and writes itself, but that's another discussion). In the tabula rasa approach, it is distributed equally among the participants (I think the RPG Universalis follows this model?).

What I hear you advocating for continuously is an approach more towards tabula rasa than the vast majority of D&D players. Would you agree?

And what I have seen you do continuously over years, time and time again, is pose different ways of subtly (or not so subtly) challenging the "main bloc" of D&D campaigns.

Don't get me wrong: I see nothing wrong with that, just as I see nothing wrong with your approach. Viva la difference.

Now would you agree that the "GM authority" and "co-creative player" approaches have different strengths and weaknesses, possibilities and limitations? And what if we use world-building as a context?

I would argue that the GM authority approach to world building offers certain distinct advantages over the co-creative player approach (just as it may have certain disadvantages), and I'll use the novel analogy to illustrate. When I read a novel I don't want to know how it ends. I like the feeling that I am entering a story that is new and fresh, that I don't know about before hand. Furthermore, I am entering the imagination of another human being.

On the other hand, when I am writing my own stories, I also often don't know how it is going to end - but I am within my own imaginative space, so I have some control in how it is formed and unfolds. I would argue that there is a kind of quasi-mystical quality to the imagination that i won't go into here, but only mention it because I don't think it is simply a matter of combining pre-existing parts in a mechanistic and rational process, but can almost be akin to "channeling." See, for instance, Coleridge's views on the imagination. But still, it is my imagination, my story, and unlike a novel that I'm reading, I can do whatever the blank I want with it.

But when I join a campaign with the assumption of GM authority, I get to enjoy the pleasure of entering another's imagination; something another has created. I do have some authority in that world, but similar authority as you or I have in the real world: I cannot magically decide what is around that next corner in the road like in a lucid dream; it is already there, pre-made. You and I are interacting (presumably) with an already-existing environment. And that limitation creates a certain kind of dramatic tension.

To be honest, I have never played in a co-creative RPG like you describe, but would love to give it a shot. But I have written a novel, and of course read many novels, so I imagine that the feeling of difference between co-creative playing and GM authority is somewhat similar to the difference between writing a novel (or co-writing a novel) and reading a novel.

So the point of world-building, in this context, is similar to the point of creating a setting for a novel: it provides a context for story, and a space for the reader (or player) to explore and enjoy. And the key is that it is a truly Otherworld, unlike one's own imagination. Actually, I think we could argue that the sense of adventure requires at least a good amount of feeling of otherworldliness - that we are leaving the familiar, known, and even controlled, and venturing forth into territory that is alien to us.

The point of world-building is to make that otherworldliness come alive, to be a living, unknown and uncertain context for the players to explore.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Are the first four years of published D&D modules somehow more important than the 35+ years that came after?

<snip>

I'm not convinced Gygax or the original modules placed that much stock in "solving puzzles". Early modules really seemed to encourage creative thought. Problems were presented and it was up to the players to device a solution. Some possible solutions were codified, but I doubt someone as imaginative as Gygas would limit himself to such hard options.

You're reading "solving puzzle" more narrowly than I intended it.

Don't think crossword. Think here's a garden rake, a pot of glue and some silver foil - how would you use that to cross this 6' wide trench? The solutions are open-ended; but a big part of play is coming up with solutions - in the form of manipulating the fiction (by way of equipment and spells, as well as clever ideas for using whatever it is the GM describes).

As to whether this is more important than subsequent D&D - I didn't say that, and didn't intend to imply it. What I said in the OP (and have reiterated a bit since) is that I think it's very clear what the GM's notes are for in that kind of play. They establish the framing for the "puzzle" (which includes the maze of the dungeon itself) and establish its parameters. Their finitude is a very important part of this - ie the dungeon is not a "living, breathing" world in the context of a particular episode of play.

You can see this pretty clearly in Gygax's advice to players in his PHB (from pp 107, 109):

First get in touch with all those who will be included in the adventure, or if all are not available, at least talk to the better players so that you will be able to set an objective for the adventure. Whether the purpose is so simple as to discover a flight of stairs to the next lowest unexplored level or so difficult as to find and destroy on altar to an alien god, some firm obiective should be established and then adhered to as strongly as possible. . . .

A word about mapping is in order. A map is very important because it helps assure that the party will be able to return to the surface. Minor
mistakes are not very important. It makes no difference if there is a 20' error somewhere as long as the chart allows the group to find its way out! As it is possible that one copy of the party's map might be destroyed by mishap or monster, the double map is a good plan whenever possible - although some players have sufficiently trained recall so as to be able to find their way back with but small difficulty, and these individuals are a great boon to the group. . . .

Avoid unnecessary encounters. This advice usually means the difference between success and failure when it is followed intelligently. Your party
has an objective, and wondering monsters are something which stand between them and it. The easiest way to overcome such difficulties is to
avoid the interposing or trailing creature if at all possible. . . . Run first and ask questions later. In the same vein, shun encounters with creatures found to be dwelling permanently in the dungeon (as far as you can tell, that is) unless such creatures are part of the set objective or the monster stands between the group and the goal it has set out to gain. Do not be sidetracked. A good referee will have many ways to distract an expedition, many things to draw attention, but ignore them if at all possible. The mappers must note all such things, and another expedition might be in order another day to investigate or destroy something or some monster, but always stay with what was planned if at all possible, and wait for another day to handle the other matters.​

This advice becomes pointless if the dungeon is changing dramatically in the timescale of PC expeditions - as under those circumstances the map becomes relatively pointless, notes as to future targets for expeditions become unhelpful, etc. A group can't follow Gygax's advice, for instance, if they can't reasonably rely upon the permanent dweller still being there when, in next week's session, they implement their new plan of going to find out what sort of treasure it might be guarding; and the, the week after that, implement their plan of going and obtaining said treasure.

As expectations about the nature and scope of the gameworld change - as we get games like Runequest that emphasise verisimiltude over the artificial environment of the Gygaxian dungeon, as we get modules like Dragonlance, as we get settings like the Forgotten Realms - the setting is clearly no longer playing the sort of role Gygax envisages in the passages I've quoted. It's not a "maze" for the players to unravel and a set of problems for them to solve (with a principal focus on loot identification and extraction).

This thread is asking - given that it's not those things, what is it for?