What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ilbranteloth]

True.

And this is where I'll bring up a question -and a term - that hasn't yet hit this thread though it's been lurking behind the scenes the whole way: at what point does player agency drift into player entitlement?

That certainly may be part of it. I’ve posted before that I think that D&D in particular has shifted to more of a player entitlement model, and some take that to the extreme that the DM should not influence the action at all. A “pure” sandbox if you will, where everything is placed ahead of time and the DM only tells the players what they find, and the dice are the only arbitrators to determine results. No DM fiat. It’s still not a choose your own adventure since the results aren’t predetermined.

Ironically, in discussions with players who feel very strongly about this approach, their very strong opinion is that the DM deciding anything on the fly, after the monsters, etc. have been placed, is infringing on their player agency. That is, anything that the DM introduces that is NOT secret backstory is taking away their player agency.

Well, a red light attempts to alter your free will in that it (or the laws behind it) expects you to stop there. You've still got the choice of going through it, I suppose, but there's strong discouragement for that choice.

But discouragement does not remove your free will, although it might influence your actions or decisions. And judging by the drivers I see, it’s not much of one.

However be advised that he's been quite consistent in this thread about tying authorship control and agency together in a you-mostly-can't-have-one-without-the-other kind of way, and has held steady through significant disagreement (including mine) with this position.

Lanefan

That’s why I have a problem with the term. In a game where the players explicitly have a shared responsibility in the authorship, taking that away from them is removing their player agency.

On the other hand, D&D and many other games do not explicitly give the players control of the fiction. The specifics vary through editions, but in general the game is based on the premise that the characters have control over their characters, which also provides some influence on the fiction through the character’s actions and decisions. They also have control over their backstory, but it’s not absolute. It’s subject to DM approval, and the DM can add to it if they wish, secretly if they so desire.

The definition of player agency is dependent upon the rules of the game being played. In OD&D through AD&D, the setting, events, creatures, and dungeons of the world were entirely within the purview of the DM. That doesn’t mean that they can’t share some of that with the players, whether during the game or in between sessions.

But not doing that doesn’t remove or impact their player agency because it wasn’t part of their player agency in the first place within those rule sets.

 

[Aenghus]

Communication remains critical in a game. If one or more players are unhappy, that's not good for the game, no more than when the referee is unhappy. Suppressing dissent, cowing players, labeling unhappy players as "entitled" can all go wrong, if the underlying issues are ignored.

Often unhappy players are reasonable and have legitimate issues. Even if they are being unreasonable, being unhappy is still an issue for the game. Now the answer in some cases might be people leaving the game, but changes and compromises are possible and happen all the time.

Trying to suppress player feedback and ignore player requests works in a very small subset of RPGs, otherwise it's terrible advice. IMO.

I constantly try to find out what my players want from my games. It helps me prepare and run them, and be aware when they want stuff I feel dodgy about or don't want to explore.

 

[chaochou]

Just as a side note, you've used this word a number of times throughout this thread, and I don't think it means what you think it means.

Just as a side note, since you have neither the courage to say what you think it means, nor the courtesy to try to establish how that differs from the way in which it has been used, your opinion is worthless. Just cowardly, passive aggressive rubbish.

If you're crtitiquing someone's use of language, the onus is on you to show that what 'you think' is correct. But you won't even state what you think. Not only are you wrong, you're gutless with it.

 

[Lanefan]

Looks like 'orthogonal' means one of:

being of or involved with right angles; or
being at right angles; or
(in statistics) statistically independent.

Certainly either of the latter two definitions could apply to how the word's been used in this thread; though which one applies at any given instance might be open to (mis)interpretation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yeah, I think what this illustrates is that GMs CAN always 'go with what the players tried'. Its partly a matter of degree, and also exactly which things the players can try (IE can they suggest the existence of the map because a map would be really useful to them and then dice for it, or does it have to be pre-established, or can it be established by the GM on the spot). Its STILL a little different when the thing the players are deciding is ONLY the character's actions (as much as the characters may be 'seizing fate by the horns') the players are still playing within the fiction that was established by the GM. Yes, they have some choices they can make, in character. It isn't exactly the same as making choices outside of character stance. So it becomes a bit more than just degree.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Right, I don't have any principle in my GMing where "there can be no secrets from the players" or anything like that. I think when [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] talks about 'secret backstory' what he's referring to is something like when the GM drops some fact on the players like "remember that goblin that got away, well he snuck back around and stole all the oil flasks, you can't start the fire!" and the whole plan that the players came up with is thwarted by something they couldn't know about, had no control over, and wasn't possible for them to anticipate or even especially likely given their state of knowledge.

Its not about "you can't have a mystery for the players/PCs to solve."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I don't think this is a relevant concern in any game that is run remotely like I would run it. The reason is that the GM isn't using framing as a control mechanic AT ALL. It just isn't one. Its merely a way of presenting a scene that relates to what the player's want. It challenges the characters and provides both a way to advance the player's agenda, and the possibility of failure, thus putting stress on the character.

If a GM is 'framing' things into a railroad, that isn't even player-centered play at all IMHO. It might possibly share some techniques, maybe, but its still a totally different kind of play.

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!"

OK, the first three are definitely in the "I don't generally do it this way anymore" category, but I agree they can work this way. I think this is most useful in things like organized play (especially #2).

I'm not sure I understand the last one. I guess games IME 'stall' when the PCs are stuck and unable to find some 'secret door' in the material the GM has prepared which lets them move forward. I'd say you won't get stuck in the most common sense of that if you don't have (at least canonical) material of this sort, and players have some agency to change the terms of the situation.

I guess if the PCs get stuck, isn't it really about the only option for the GM to have some sort of deus ex machina (IE ninjas attack)?!!?

 

[Campbell]

I want to go back and address the OP.

I do not think it is helpful to frame every incidence of GM created backstory or even all prepared material as world building. To me the connotation behind world building implies that the setting has value beyond providing a play space for the game we are playing. For me when I hear most more traditionally leaning GMs talk about world building it's almost always focused on creating something to show off to the players later, not setting up a situation for them to respond to.

I contrast it with dungeon design, scenario design or something like Apocalypse World style fronts which are designed fiction meant to provide the players with opportunities to play a game, make meaningful decisions and mess about in the fiction. I do not mean to demean color here. I think it can be important to breathe life into the game. I just consider it the spice and not the main ingredient. I am not here to express my individual creativity or consume anyone else's individual creativity. I'm here for what we do together.

For a long time I personally held off running games because I had no interest in world building or planning out narrative arcs. The games I did run I did not enjoy because I felt like I had to do all this extraneous crap. I also became increasingly frustrated with games I played in where I felt like a bystander or audience member rather than an active participant. I am not knocking the enjoyment some people get from this sort of experience. I just find serial world exploration for its own sake incredibly boring.

I know I am not going to make many friends here by saying this, but I really think the role of world building really is about players as consumers of content rather than active contributors. Players are expected to enjoy the world building for its own sake, and make what I feel are relatively modest contributions through play. This isn't like a bad thing. It's just a thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, I don't have any principle in my GMing where "there can be no secrets from the players" or anything like that. I think when [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] talks about 'secret backstory' what he's referring to is something like when the GM drops some fact on the players like "remember that goblin that got away, well he snuck back around and stole all the oil flasks, you can't start the fire!" and the whole plan that the players came up with is thwarted by something they couldn't know about, had no control over, and wasn't possible for them to anticipate or even especially likely given their state of knowledge.

That's not really true, though. PCs often set a guard on their stuff, which would prevent the goblin's success, so they do have a degree of control over the situation. PCs often anticipate thieves going after their stuff, ignoring thieves in D&D is a good way to get stuff stolen. It's very possible for them to anticipate the theft, if not who stole the oil. Also, they don't necessarily need oil to start a fire, so it's very likely that the theft won't even thwart them. It would just be a minor setback.

Most situations that I've seen that are given to show how the DM is thwarting the players with secret backstory are similarly flawed. There are ways to have avoided the situation had they taken them. That's not to say that they can't be thwarted, but that A) those situations are much rarer than people make them out to be, and/or involve railroading.

 

[pemerton]

Whether the discovery was pre-authored or not doesn’t really have anything to do with player agency. The players are not being restricted in their choices or actions.

Yes they were.

Just to give a simple example: if the GM tells the players they are in the middle of a desert that stretches as far as they can see in every direction, then they are not able to declare, as actions for their PCs, that they board their boat and sail away.

@pemerton may prefer a game where the players have a greater ability to author beyond the actions and decisions of their characters

This has come up so many times in this thread that I should just have a bot posting my response to it!

You can have a game with a high degree of player agency over the shared fiction which doesn't require the players doing anything in the course of play but delcaring actions for their PCs.

There are two main components to this that I have mentioned multiple (extremely multiple) times upthread. (1) The core focus of, and material, for plauy is established by the GM by reference to player signals. (2) Player acrion declarations for their PCs are adjudicated via action resolution mechanics rather than unrevealed fictional positioning known only to the GM.

That's not to say there is anything wrong with (3) the players have fiat power to introduce elements of the fiction. That is an occasional ad hoc element in my games. It is a systematic element in some systems (eg Fate, OGL Conan) and it is a more important part of some other posters RPGing than it is of mine (eg [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]). But to talk about player agency over the content of the shared fiction is not to talk particularly about (3) at all. (1) and (2) are the main game.

he's been quite consistent in this thread about tying authorship control and agency together in a you-mostly-can't-have-one-without-the-other kind of way, and has held steady through significant disagreement

Lanefan, I refer you to the above paragraphs in this post which are a reiteration of something that you must have already encountered (eg I would have posted it in reply to you) multiple times in this thread.

EDIT:

Up to this point you've been pretty steady in stating your view that, if I may sum up, comes down to player agency largely being defined by player contribution to the shared fiction.

I haven't defined player agency at all - but yes, I have been interested mostly in player agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction. That's why I keep using that phrase!

there's only two ways in which a player can contribute to shared fiction: by altering something that's already present in the fiction (e.g. successfully searching for a secret door puts one in a wall already known to be part of the fictional scene; or by blowing up the room with a fireball), or by introducing something new (e.g. adding a weakness for gambling to the guard's background via successful use of player-side mechanics).

This claim is not true.

Here's one way that a player can exercise agency in respect of the shared fiction: s/he declares an action along the lines of "I offer the bribe a guard"; then we resolve that action using whatever the mechanics are (eg Traveller's mechanics for the bribery skill; the Moldvay Basic reaction table; etc); and if the action succeeds, we now know - among other things - that the guard in question was susceptible to being bribed.

That doesn't involve rewriting anything. Nor does it involve introducing something new. This is one way in which RPGs are different from cooperative storytelling games - they have action resolution mechanics to mediate the process of establishing fiction.

Here's another way a player can exercise agency in respect of the shared fiction: s/he tells the GM that her PC is a fox spirit banished from the animal courts of heaven. The GM then frames a scene in which constables of hell come to the PCs in their teahouse, and declare that the PC must come with them to face judgement for violating the terms of that banishment.

That doesn't involve rewriting anything. The only fiction that it introduces is backstory about the PC (when this happened in one of my campaigns, the fact that the gameworld includes animal courts in heaven was already an established part of the fiction). It is the GM who writes in the constables of hell. But they are a clear response to the backstory established by the player. The GM's introduction of them into the fiction affirms the player's agency over the content of the shared fiction.

I looked deeper at that Eero stuff last night and found something that surprised me: bluntly put, in his view the DM has control over backstory.

Worldbuilding, in the OP sense, is one way to establish backstory. It's not the only way. Consider the example that was just given.

To say that the GM is responsible for managing the backstory - as occurs in the example of constables of hell coming to take the PC off to face trial - is not to say that the GM is expected to pre-author setting material (i) independently of player signals about PC dramatic needs, or (ii) so as to use it as a secret element of fictional positioning in the adjudication of action declarations.