What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

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.

There are a number of different ways to adjudicate "succesfully navigating the sewers".

This could mean that the GM already has a map of the sewers drawn, with the location of the otyugh marked on it, and the players' main goal is to declare moves which will give them information about the GM's map, including (ultimately) where the otyugh is located on it.

Or it could mean that the players declare (say) Dungeoneering checks (in 4e) or Catacombs-wise checks (as happened in my BW game), with difficulties set in whatever manner the game prescribes (in 4e this is the DC-by-level chart; in BW each skill has associated DCs for various tasks); resources are consumed in the course of resolving these checks (eg powers or rituals in 4e; perhaps fate and persona points in BW; and equipment might be used in either system); and the success or failure of these checks determines whether or not the PCs find their way through the sewers, or are lost in the sewers, or get ambushed by the otyugh, etc.

In Cortex+ Heroic this would most likely be a single check, made to establish a Tracked Down the Otyugh asset (or something similar, depending exactly how the player establishes his/her PC's goal). Success would mean that the next scene opens with the PCs having found the otyugh, and one would have the benefit of the asset. Failure could mean a number of different things, depending on how exactly it plays out, but one possibility would be that the PCs encounter the otyugh while subject to a complication; or perhaps the GM frames them into an encounter with something other than the otyugh, given that they failed to track it down.

So anyway, until we know how the resolution is going to be handled it's not even clear what it means to "keep the otyugh's location hidden": do you mean that there is a bit of information known to the GM that the players won't know until they declare the right moves to learn it? (This is how the first sort of approach would work.) Or do you mean that the players have to succeed at some other challenge before they earn the privilege of being framed into an encounter with the otyugh (or maybe if they fail they still get the otyugh encounter, but subject to some disadvantage)?

These different sorts of approaches involve different degrees of player agency over the content of the shared fiction.

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?

I had some long discussions of this upthread.

My own view is that if "secret" framing is (i) knowable, and (ii) salient, and (iii) not devastating if undiscovered, then it's fair game. These are all obviously highly contextual - if the group has a long history together, and the players have extensive familiarity with the highways and byways of the GM's tricksy mind, then things might be salient that would not be salient among strangers.

"Ample means for discovery" seems to me to address (i) but not (ii). "Strongly telegraphed means" to me suggests a high degree of GM agency relative to player agency - if the situation is player-driven, then the GM shouldn't have to "telegraph" because the salience will already be implicit in the situation.

Is setting up a "hidden" victory condition at all like this a bad idea?

This seems to be completely orthogonal. CoC scenarios work almost entirely like this - that doesn't mean that CoC scenarios are bad idead, or for that matter that they're good ideas. Some people enjoy them; others don't.

Clearly a lot of people like The Alexandrian's "node-based design" and "three clue rule", which is essentially a set of techniques for running a scenario along the lines that you describe (the "three clue rule" is a device for "telegraphing"; the "node-based design" is a device for accommodating different sequences of player-declared moves to try and learn the information that the GM has prepared in advance).

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"?

A significant issue here is, how are difficulties established?

In 4e these default to a DC-by-level chart, and so there is no particular reason to think that interrogation is a (mechanically) harder way to get the information than blackmail or quid quo pro. Cortex+ uses opposed checks for everything, with dice pools coming either from character sheets or the Doom Pool; again, there's no reason to think that one way here would be mechanically easier than the other.

In BW, which uses "objective" (ie fiction-derived) difficulties rather than pacing-derived difficulties, it might be easier to interrogate the magistrate than go through the trouble of dealing with the bookie.

What seems to me to be at stake in the scenario you've set out isn't difficulty at all, but rather, what do the players want their PCs to do? Are they ruthless? (Capture and interrogate the magistrate.) Do they care about reputation? (In which case, be nice to the magistrate.) Do they want to make a friend? (In which case, help the magistrate deal with the bookie.)

This is one reason why player-driven games tend to use either pacing-derived difficulties, or provide the players with resources (like fate points etc) to modulate "objective" difficulties - so that the players can then make and act on the decisions that express their conceptions of what the situation demands (in moral, thematic, character, terms) of their PCs. Whereas in a GM-driven game, the players are perhaps more likely to be trying to ascertain the path of least difficulty so that they can have the best chance of success, which may tend to produces a more operational and expedience-driven play.

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?

Well, do you want a game that emphasises learning stuff the GM has establishd but not revealed about the magistrate? Or that emphasises "I'm the sort of person who will cheerfully blackmail and quid quo pro my way to the top!" Different priorities for play suggest different ways of adjudicating the scene, with different amounts of player agency over the content of the shared fiction being appropriate to them.

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."

Besides everything I've said above, at this point I was wondering why anyone cares about the prisoner. Is the prisoner just a McGuffin? Which already suggests a somewhat GM-driven game. Or is there something at stake here in relation to this prisoner, this magistrate, etc?

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.

This takes me back to the questions about resolution. Until we know how resolution works (again, contrast plotting positions on a map with adjudicating a skill challenge), ti's not even clear what "updating" or "modifyting" or "improvising" look like.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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.

I guess this seems as good a place as any to jump in...

First. I don't give a crap about "player agency."

Ok, I do, but not quite in the same idealistic way that a lot of gamers on the forum do. To me "player agency" (one of those buzzwords I hate since there isn't an agreed-upon definition), is simply that the players (primarily as their characters) get to make decisions in the game without interference or the rules changing under their feet.

In a recent thread elsewhere, somebody cried foul against player agency because the DM preferred his players to roll their ability scores (as do I). This was taking away player agency, because they couldn't set their own ability scores.

I disagree. How you generate ability scores is part of the rules of the game. And the DM (and to a degree the table) determines the rules of the game. To put it a different way, I have limited time to run a D&D game, and want to run the game in a way that I enjoy. I'm happy to put rules up for discussion, and will often change them if that's what the table wishes.

But one of the most enjoyable part of character creation is the excitement of rolling six abilities (in order) and the inspiration they provide to help develop and design this character. And sure, it's easy to start with the highest score and build something from that, but it's usually the mix of them that starts to inspire something. This is what the character is "born" with, and then we take it from there. We generally roll characters together, and this process is often one of brainstorming amongst the group. We also often roll 3 characters at a time (and all 3 are built to the basic 1st-level character).

The point is, that we've (I've) set a limitation of the game (or chosen one of the options given). But that's not harming the precious player agency. It's just providing a different framework for the player to fully and completely express their player agency. That framework is part of what defines the game, just like basing the ability scores on 72 points, or a range of 3d6 (instead of percentile), or whatever. Limitations in and of themselves are not an impact on player agency.

So to so-called secret backstories:

It doesn't matter if the DM thought of something 2 days ago, 2 hours ago, or 2 seconds ago. All have their benefits, and all can also be problematic. Personally, I'm not a fan of everything being defined and noted in every place on the map, etc. That's too much prep and doesn't provide much in return. However, I love things like a couple of sentences defining a few characteristics, goals, and such for an NPC, monster, or whatever. I love digging into the ecology of a creature (say, lizardfolk), and defining how they view the world as a race, how they interact with it, how they live. All too often, DMs and writers approach a monster only in relation to their encounters with adventures.

For example, it is my fervent belief that drow, duergar, and other underdark races would light their cities and regularly frequented locations with dim light. Why? Because they are at a disadvantage in darkness. But the usual argument is that they are at an advantage against humans and surface races. But the day-to-day life, indeed, the year-to-year or even the decade-to-decade they may not come across a surface dweller that lacks darkvision. On the other hand they encounter lots of other deadly things in the Underdark, and would naturally ensure that they weren't at a disadvantage (darkness = disadvantage on Perception checks), and increase visibility to the nearest physical obstacle, instead of just 120 feet. To put it a different way, once you're within 120 feet of a Displacer Beast, it's probably too late...

Anyway, this is "secret backstory." Or, it's world-building and intelligent DM prep so I have a sense as to what I'll have to describe when I need to improvise.

So back to your specific questions, well question. I'm going to speak to #2. The gambling debts are indeed the dreaded "secret backstory." However, in addition to recommending intelligent prep (and in this case that magistrate might have 2 or 3 sentences at most), I also say that nothing is set in stone until it enters the campaign.

For example, during the PC interaction, the players start looking for a potential way to convince the magistrate to divulge the secret location (oh, that's secret backstory too). In the process, they inquire about his family, in particular one of the players asks about a rogue that they had previously discovered to be a magistrate's son (I might have even forgotten). In the process it occurs to me that the magistrate's son is the one with the gambling debts, and he fears for his life, and is willing to give away the secret location for them to help his son.

In other words, through the interaction with the players, a better scenario has presented itself, and my secret backstory bent to accommodate the circumstance. It rewards good play with results, without having to pre-plan everything, and more importantly, acknowledges the fact that it's a game where we're all visualizing something different in our heads, and without the benefit of actually being present with the person in question, etc. My input into the story is entirely that of the NPCs, monsters, and world itself, and is often "written" in response to things the players say, not just what the characters do and say. Sometimes things that came directly from the players don't materialize for a while. But I find that the more I listen to and incorporate what the players say, and the ideas they have (often just an offhand comment), the more it draws them into the game, because they can relate more directly to things they thought of, even if they don't remember it.

Another example would be searching for a hidden tomb. In my campaign the players have found a map amongst the belongings of a deceased adventurer. There are some basic instructions to the location. I have an idea of where it will be located, and they have set a priority to find it. They didn't follow up (yet) on what I thought they might. But if there's anything I've learned, the players never do what I expect. But I provide lots of potential threads and hooks for them to follow, and they pick up the one they want to follow at a specific time. I don't have to have all of the answers about where this tomb is, or exactly how they'll find it, etc. And there are lots of threads they never follow up on. That's fine too.

I also don't think there's inherently a problem with a single solution scenario. My players expect to encounter things from time-to-time that they can't overcome...yet. And it's actually a very good thing too. In my world, if there's a tomb that has survived mundane and magical attempts to plunder it for over 2,000 years, then it's going to be a pretty deadly challenge if the PCs figure out how to get in when nobody else has. And not being able to get in yet is probably saving them from certain death. Obviously it will be a challenge even for somebody that manages to figure it out. I don't generally design puzzles that the players must figure out exactly, although this group likes those sort of things. And it was part of what originally rounded out D&D into more than just combat. So failure here doesn't mean there aren't other options in life (usually), but it does help build a more believable world in that they won't always be successful.

Perhaps it's just me and my own abilities, and that there are people that can run a game without any preconceived or prepared "secret" information. I find that having lots of little bits and pieces give me the tools to improvise better, as a starting point, when the players run off to do something unexpected. Like the session that started with the characters heading to a merchant caravan's camp to gather information on one of their priorities, only to be side-tracked when the "I can't relate to people unless I've had something to drink" sorcerer lamented the fact that due to a recent magical mishap he is immune to the effects of alcohol for the next 20 days, and he really, really wanted anything to help and asked if maybe there were any drugs he could find. Suffice to say, that session didn't go near anything I expected, and had I been a "prep first" type DM wouldn't have used anything I prepped. Instead, I have 30+ years of notes, thoughts, little maps, rumors, plots, schemes, NPCs and monsters to draw from for inspiration and I can take all these bits and pieces of "secret backstory" as a launching pad to improvise but still maintain consistency in the world.

The bottom line is there isn't anything wrong with pre-authored vs improvised. What matters is that the players are engaged, they feel like they are part of the world and the adventure, and that you aren't changing the rules, inhibiting their choices, or making arbitrary decisions that have significant impact on their play or their characters. To me it's more of a continuum, with preauthored at one end, and totally improvised at the other, with various branches regarding how much input the players have on the world and setting vs. the DM, etc.

Some people prefer a much more collaborative approach, where the players provide direct and in-the-moment influence in the world and other aspects outside of the specific character. I'm not a fan of those myself. I've yet to find a group that can do that well, and that asks to do it more. On the other hand, I have lots of former players that either ask to rejoin, or if they've moved away, lament that they can't find a DM that they like as much, or that runs a game in the manner I do.

It's clear when somebody joins my table that I'm setting limitations (I have a lot of house rules), and that the focus will be different than other games. And the primary focus of the player is their character(s) and the actions they take and decisions they make. I do give them quite a bit of leeway in determining how they fit into the world up to this point, and in interactions with people in the village they have a say in what sort of relationship they have with a person, if they know them, etc. But they also understand that there is a point where I will make those determinations, or inform them when something that they suggest isn't the case. It's still a collaborative approach, but I have more of a final say when dealing with the world and its inhabitants outside of the PCs.

It doesn't take away any player agency. They know right up front what the rules are, and how I run my game. They have 100% agency to play their character, and their actions and decisions as that character. Player agency is defined, in part, within the framework of the game being played. And to say that running a D&D game where the DM preps material is taking away player agency when compared to another game (D&D or otherwise) where the DM improvises, or works only from random tables, etc., is like saying it's no fair that you can't jump the other player's pieces in chess. That's simply because chess is different from checkers. It's not affecting their agency at all.

To fully address player agency and its relationship to things like secret backstory, or even somethings as controversial as fudging dice, requires you to take into account the specific rules in play at the table, and the goals of the DM and the players and what they are expecting to get out of it. I recently ran a very linear campaign (multiple parallel story arcs), where as the DM I "authored" a much larger part of the story than I normally do. But that's what that group wanted, it's the way they like to play, and to not provide that would have been taking away their player agency to play the type of game they preferred.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

I agree there's a difference but only in the pre-authored vs. non-pre-authored element; a difference that shouldn't even be observable by the players if the DM is good enough at her trade.

Otherwise it's the same - the players exercise agency over the content of the shared fiction via their decisions as to where they-as-PCs will go in the game world and what they will do when they get there.

Using a modern-based example: if the players decide their PCs are going to Spain then the shared fiction for the next while is going to be about Spain and what the PCs do there; where if instead they decide they're going to Nepal then the upcoming shared fiction is very likely going to take place in Nepal - a significantly different culture and atmosphere from Spain. If the DM had stuff prepared for Spain but the sudden turn to Nepal has caught her off guard she has to be able to deal with that and from the players' side make it appear as if it's every bit as prepared as Spain would have been, even though she's completely winging it.

Lanefan

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

When the issue of trust has arisen, it has been dismissed when it is interpersonal, i.e. between players and GM at the table. What I'm suggesting here--and perhaps I differ from @pemerton, @AbdulAlhazred, and others--is that any real human being would be tempted to steer play in a certain direction (including, potentially, negating PC action declarations), even unconsciously, if hours of hard work had gone into crafting a secret backstory. Removing secret backstory keeps the GM agenda free of entanglements that may come at odds with player goals in this way. It's not really a trust issue at all.

I agree, and have the experience to back this up. However, its impossible to say that any person posting here and espousing GM-driven play IS doing any of that, and naturally they're not guilty of advocating for it simply because they see that as a good way to run a game. I mean, this is the rock that all RPG discussions of this ilk sink on. Everyone takes any critique of their favorite techniques as a judgement of play using those techniques, and of the people doing it. Its very easy and natural, just as easy and natural as steering the game in a direction that goes down some specific road.

That being said, you can devise very clean sandboxes and that does help to avoid the problem you're talking about. I mean, IF I prepare 4 different adventure locations that are unrelated to each other, I have little incentive to push things in one direction. Its just potentially a lot more work.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Yeah, I think it is MAINLY directed by the GM in terms of what the basic parameters of the scenario are, but there's definitely some adaptive framing in terms of ideas/interests presented by the players. I consider games like this kind of 'middle of the road' and its typical of what MANY of us have done in the past. I think its similar to the first, heroic tier, section of my opening 4e campaign. As we transitioned towards paragon though I just decreased the degree of prep a LOT, and then I found it was even more fluid because I could just follow the player's lead. Even then I do MOST of the actual figuring out of what is where.

So it would be interesting to consider a version of your example that was run on my current technique. I'd have to think about how exactly I would set up the challenges, it really depends heavily on the details of what the players have signaled.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Of course you've misunderstood. The answers are not all pre-authored. The players can not only come up with ways that I didn't think of, but come up with ideas that will yield helpful information that I didn't think of. None of that is pre-authored.

There are two ways to come up with a choose your own adventure book. One of which is impossible. You can detail literally every possible thing in the world from atoms on up, so that nothing the players can think of or do isn't already written down(this is the impossible one), and you can place them in an extremely tight railroad, which isn't something anyone here in this discussion does.

There is no "choose your own adventure" in our style of play and it's time you admit that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

No, you DISAGREED with him, that's nothing like correcting someone. And when you 'correct' people by telling them that your opinion is facts and they need to accept it as such, particularly without concrete evidence of such (and in the case of things that are matters of aesthetics/taste there are NEVER facts) its simply being a git.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but your not entitled your own personal opinion being given the status of 'fact' just because you like it.

Now, sometimes people make statements without saying one way or the other how they consider it, but its better to assume they're willing to grant everyone else their own tastes and opinions unless otherwise stated. That just facilitates discussion and means disputes will only happen when someone actually IS a jerk, and not when they simply don't like your way of doing things so much and voice some criticism of it (and I mean criticism in its most neutral way, to point out the flaws in a thing, not 'to condemn it').

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I feel like the real core of this is that you don't want to even discuss [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s concept of player agency. That concept is a very basic agency concept that says "you have agency when you have power to control something" in essence. So, when a poster says "the players moved their characters to point X and I told them they found Y, and they said 'we search' and nothing was found because that's what the map key said was there, nothing." (I know, I'm stripping the narrative down to a very dry level, but I'm not doing so to attack the technique, but just to easily illustrate the elements of it) then where is the player agency by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s measure? I don't see how, in a game where all the content is as established as the real world is, and just as immutable, that the players have any agency over that. I my example they simply don't. You can say that they could have gone to room Z instead of X, and then found something when they searched. OK, but that's missing the point, the players still didn't decide what the narrative was going to include or be about, at all!

So, when you instead assert your theory, that the PCs having a choice in-game is agency (although I am personally not understanding what is being controlled by fictional people) then Pemerton saying "its just like a choose-your-own-adventure novel" is bound to piss you off, because you think that someone is wrong AND critical, but its not wrong, you just have to be able to discuss things in terms that other people accept sometimes. We can have a discussion about YOUR definition of 'agency' (actually we did, and I'm sorry to say I wasn't really convinced it is very useful, but I'd be the last person to tell anyone to shut up, you can champion that view as much as you want). In other words, put yourself in the position of the person you're arguing with and see if maybe their viewpoint actually makes some sense, and isn't as antagonistic as you think.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

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.

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

I think the key point is that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is interested in the EXPERIENCE of the players, what they're after from the game, which isn't necessarily related to which particular one of the choices that they make for their characters. I mean, it MIGHT be, but nobody can say if and to what degree. That isn't because of 'railroading', that's not really necessary for the 'limited agency' that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] means. He just means "the players may not be defining what the game is about."

I mean, lets use another spherical cow example, what if the game takes place in an endless maze of basically identical rooms and corridors. Its true that the players have 'agency' in this game. In fact, in some abstract way, JUST AS MUCH as in any other game where the GM established environs and contents and thus topic of the fiction. However that agency is obviously meaningless in this hypothetical scenario, the PCs can go left, right, north, south, whatever. They're just going to encounter more endless and virtually identical rooms and corridors.

The point is, AT THE LIMIT, the type of freedom you posit has no agency about it. Now, realistic play isn't at that limit, but it is closer to it than what Pemerton does. So, I can see why he, at least claims, it represents less agency.

Now, if the players choice of going left leads to a realm of undead and a quest to defeat them, and going right leads to a realm of orcs and a quest to establish peace between them and the dwarves, then that's a meaningful choice, BUT the GM still decided the agenda in either direction. We also have to ask if the players knew which choice lead where. Lets say they did, well then they 'voted with their (characters) feet' and we might call that agency over the content of the game, at least within the menu of choices presented. Still, there are types of things that the players can't do here, like introduce an element into the fiction that wasn't thought of by the GM.

Obviously real games OFTEN include, informally, something like "wouldn't it be cool if my character was trying to find the cure for the disease that his town is dying of?" or whatever, and the GM taking the offered hook/backstory. So, probably for anyone that has played as long as we all obviously have, I suspect there's nothing too close to my spherical cow. We can still ask about the function of world building though, right?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I had the former in mind, though I think the later is cool too. I haven't done that in a long time, but back in our early days it was very common. Characters would get moved around between GM's worlds and whatnot.