What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ovinomancer]

Fair point, but I still say it's incumbent on the DM to at least mention that those intersections exist and thus give the players/PCs a choice on whether to do anything differently given this new information. (e.g. maybe one of these intersections provides a safer path to where we're going...we'll never know if we don't explore...)

Sure, this goes to my points about reduction of tactical and logistic agency.

But passes the definition of railroad if the definition includes undue reduction or elimination of player/PC choices or options, which IMO it does.

That's a uselessly broad definition.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

We're still talking about different things. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has stated it pretty explicitly a few times, "agency over the issues they engage within the game" to paraphrase. As with my 'spherical cow' above, the endless maze, if the only choice is left to face orcs and right to face undead, that's SOME agency over the activity of the characters, but it is a SMALL agency because it only allows choices with the absolute bounds of what the GM proposed. A player cannot say here "I try to find the secret passage which leads to the land of the Yuan Ti, my character is obsessed with finding them."

But they still have 100% player agency in both scenarios. What that agency allows them to do is different, and that's my point. The "issues they engage within the game" is dependent upon the rules of the game.

In your spherical cow example, the player can say "I try to find the secret passage which leads to the land of the Yuan Ti, my character is obsessed with finding them." That doesn't mean he'll find it, though.

Of course, if we explore that a bit farther, the answer might be no because:

1. There isn't one (as pre-determined by the DM);
2. There isn't one (as determined by a die roll); or
3. There isn't one (as determined by the DM on the spot)
4. There isn't one (as determined by the player deciding that there shouldn't be one there).

Those are all different mechanical rule approaches but the result is the same.

Player agency itself isn't any different for any of them. They still have full control over the parts of the game that the rules allow. However, they allow different levels of control of the fiction outside of their characters.

#1 doesn't impact player agency, because in that system of rules, the player doesn't have the ability to influence the placement of a secret door. The DM could impact player agency by lying, even though he had placed a secret door there.

#2 doesn't impact player agency, but it does allow for the placement of such a secret door with a successful die roll. Note that the DM could affect the player's agency through modifiers.

#3 doesn't inherently impact player agency, since the rules allow the DM to decide whether a secret door is present or not. But there is certainly room for abuse, depending on how the rules.

#4 is the only option that puts the player fully in control of the decision, by the rules. The DM might be able to impact player agency by overruling it, but if the rules give the player this capability, that's probably not an easy option for the DM.

Of course, many might indicate that it is within the rights of the DM to overrule any of these, and it was explicitly stated in the AD&D DMG, but most would agree that this is wrong and takes away the player's agency.

 

[tomBitonti]

In your spherical cow example, the player can say "I try to find the secret passage which leads to the land of the Yuan Ti, my character is obsessed with finding them." That doesn't mean he'll find it, though.

Of course, if we explore that a bit farther, the answer might be no because:

1. There isn't one (as pre-determined by the DM);
2. There isn't one (as determined by a die roll); or
3. There isn't one (as determined by the DM on the spot)
4. There isn't one (as determined by the player deciding that there shouldn't be one there).

Additional text omitted.

As far as I understand the systems, I thought player agency meant that they very definitely do find a secret passage, with the understanding that the DM will place obstacles to findings and using the passage. Or rather, that the passage does exist, albeit with obstacles that must be overcome standing between the player and the passage.

Then, the player agency is in declaring that what matters to them is finding the secret passage. (The player may have a larger goal: Traversing the passage to visit the Yuan-Ti lands. Traversing the passage to learn mystic arts from a Yuan-Ti Sorcerer. Traversing the passage to learn mystic arts to create a new shadow cabal and take over the city underworld. One expects that what matters to the player will both shift and be embellished by the player.)

In a GM driven game, the GM will have already decided whether any secret passage as desired by the player exists, and whether the play can find it.

I thought this was the crux of the difference between player driven and GM driven: With player driven, the plot is presented by the player, then modified in a collaborative fashion with the GM and other players. With GM driven, a plot is present to players, who accept that they will allow the in-plot goals to become their player goals. (An alternative to GM driven is a sandbox, where major plot elements are present, and the players pursue those which are of interest.)

In GM driven play, there will be a point outside of the game where the players and GM agree on the "meta". Say:

GM: Hey, interested in running through Against the Giants the next few months? You'll be playing adventurers sent by the local Baron to find and stop giants who have recently begun raiding the countryside.

Players: Hmm, can we do the Drow stuff instead?

But even in Player driven play, there are some decisions made in the meta: What game system to use. What particular rules are allowed. The power level of the characters. How many characters each player controls.

Thx!
TomB

(I pretty sure I've written something similar a while ago. Odd feeling, that.)

 

[pemerton]

typically highly detailed worlds constrain the PCs more , low detail worlds constrain PCs less.

For my part, my interest is not really on how constrained the PCs are but how constrained the players are. There is no strict correlation between the two, and so I prefer to try to un derstand the process at the table, rather than extrapolate that from events in and elements of the fiction.

The less detail a setting has, the less consequences are associated with particular locations

<snip>

Framing PCs into a location in a heavy-weight setting may bring with it lots of consequences, some or all unknown to the players, so it could be railroading.

Framing PCs into a location in a lightweight setting has a lot less inherent consequences, and is less likely to be railroading IMO.

"No myth" locations, as I understand them, only have as much or as little detail as the participants want, and typically don't get in the way of the focus of play which is the player goals. Such locations will often carry no inherent consequences, the focus of play is on the player goals, and the onus is on the dramatic decision points re these goals and their interaction to provide player agency and drive the game, not the location or the setting.

Another way to describe "inherent consequences" is a story the GM tells the players, triggered by the players making moves that engage fictional positioning that the players themselves are unaware of.
[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s example upthread of the NPC who is (unbeknownst to the players) an agent for the duke, and who therefore fails in her mission when the PCs charm her, is an example of the same thing but in NPC rather than location form.

The essence of "no myth" is found in the examples I've given in the thraed: how do we (as players in the game) establish the properties of the feather? A player delcares an action for his/her PC and makes a check. How do we establish whether the map can be found in the study? A player delcares an action for his/her PC and makes a check.

How do we learn that the Raven Queen's mausoleum is on a layer of the Abyss? Because the PCs find themselves on the Abyss as it is unravelling (because the PCs, some time earlier, sealing it off from its source of matter in the Elemental Chaos), and three of those PCs are Raven Queen devotees, and so the GM frames a scene in which a Demon Lord offers to tell them the location of the maosoleum in exchange for their chaos barge (which they are using to travel through the Abyss, hoping to make their own escape).

Those are the two basic modes for establishing setting in no myth RPGing. A player makes a check. Or the GM frames a scene.

Given that every work of fiction ever produced ever is, of necessity, no myth (because they are fictions, not atlases and biographies), I think it's obvious that there's no truth at all to the claim that "no myth" = no depth of setting.

 

[pemerton]

Finding out after the fact all of what we missed in a given adventure can be hilarious, if embarrassing sometimes.

This absolutely assumes a GM-driven game. In a story now game, there is not "the adventure" which has bits that you miss.

In my eyes pemerton's example of talking to the angels and then jumping straight to the reliquary scene is exactly this.

I actually posted it upthread. Where does it involve "jumping" from anything to anything? What lack of depth was there?

 

[pemerton]

Let's go with your giants example. After the players make the pact with the dwarves, if the DM places them anywhere, he's railroading.

Are you really saying the following is railroading?

GM: OK, so you've agreed to help the dwarves against the giants. Your're heading off, right?

Players: Yes, we're heading off as soon as Aster makes some potions of fire resistance for us.

GM: OK, mark down your potions and cross off your residuum. You trek through the Underdark, following the directions the dwarves gave you. Everyone make a DC 20 Endurance check - if you fail, you're down a healing surge by the time you arrive at your destination.

<players adjust equpiment lists, make checks, adjust healing surge totals if required>

GM: Just as the dwarves told you, after a hard trek through the tunnels you find yourself at the entrance to a massive cavern. It's lit a dull red by the glow of lava that bubbles up through the floor of the cave and flows away in criss-crossing channels. A black, basalt structure stands in the centre - the Hall of the Fire Giant King.​

Where's the railroad?

If he puts them in a fight in the next scene, it's not only a railroad, but a blatant one.

Why?

Let's consider a variation of the above:

. . .

GM: Just as the dwarves told you, after a hard trek through the tunnels you find yourself at the entrance to a massive cavern. It's lit a dull red by the glow of lava that bubbles up through the floor of the cave and flows away in criss-crossing channels. In the glow of the lava, you can see fire giant sentries on patrol. And it seems that a group of sentries has seen you!​

Where's the railroad?

The players didn't make the decision to go there. That was the DM.

This is entirely your assumption and your projection. It's not what [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] said. It's got no connection to any actual play reports that have been posted.

More generally, you're making some assumptions about the dynamics of play, and the back-and-forth at the table, that are completely different from anything I've experienced except with the most worst GMs who have no conception of how to respond to player action declarations.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Additional text omitted.

As far as I understand the systems, I thought player agency meant that they very definitely do find a secret passage, with the understanding that the DM will place obstacles to findings and using the passage. Or rather, that the passage does exist, albeit with obstacles that must be overcome standing between the player and the passage.

Then, the player agency is in declaring that what matters to them is finding the secret passage. (The player may have a larger goal: Traversing the passage to visit the Yuan-Ti lands. Traversing the passage to learn mystic arts from a Yuan-Ti Sorcerer. Traversing the passage to learn mystic arts to create a new shadow cabal and take over the city underworld. One expects that what matters to the player will both shift and be embellished by the player.)

In a GM driven game, the GM will have already decided whether any secret passage as desired by the player exists, and whether the play can find it.

I thought this was the crux of the difference between player driven and GM driven: With player driven, the plot is presented by the player, then modified in a collaborative fashion with the GM and other players. With GM driven, a plot is present to players, who accept that they will allow the in-plot goals to become their player goals. (An alternative to GM driven is a sandbox, where major plot elements are present, and the players pursue those which are of interest.)

In GM driven play, there will be a point outside of the game where the players and GM agree on the "meta". Say:

GM: Hey, interested in running through Against the Giants the next few months? You'll be playing adventurers sent by the local Baron to find and stop giants who have recently begun raiding the countryside.

Players: Hmm, can we do the Drow stuff instead?

But even in Player driven play, there are some decisions made in the meta: What game system to use. What particular rules are allowed. The power level of the characters. How many characters each player controls.

Thx!
TomB

(I pretty sure I've written something similar a while ago. Odd feeling, that.)

But even in a system with this definition of "player agency" they don't always find the secret passage. Even if the player is the one declaring the fiction at that point in time, the dice can indicate failure, although most of them espouse the type of "fail forward" of success with complications. But if the circumstances and dice align, then the result could very well be one of failure, and in other discussions, proponents of these systems have indicated that actual failure is possible.

Regardless, my point isn't whether the passage is found or not. It's how the game determines if the passage is found (or even there).

The GM vs Player driven game is another confusing mess. To some folks, it's a game where the DM doesn't add anything during the course of play. They use a published adventure or the DM preps it ahead of time (and can even show his notes if there's a dispute), and any modifications the DM makes in the course of the game is taking away their player agency. But the players don't add to the fiction of the world, just take actions as their characters. That's not the type of GM driven game you're referring to, though.

What you're referring to is more a question of how much input the players have into the fiction of the world. In many Story Now games they have a fair amount of it, although Eero's essay advised against them having control of the fiction during the course of play. In D&D I think that there's always an aspect of players adding to the fiction outside of their characters, although it's usually more indirectly. Through backstory and if the DM works their ideas into the game. That's what I do, although they also have more direct input at times as well. For example, during the course of play, when we are in town (their home town) then I ask for their input as to what they know. For example, when meeting an NPC from town, they fill in what they know about that NPC, what their relationship is, etc. In general, regarding lore about the region, etc. we handle things similarly.

Really, I see it more as a continuum, of how much input into the fiction outside of the characters the players have, and how much input/veto the DM has with regards to that input. Most of my players don't want any input into the fiction beyond their characters and their decisions and actions. They are looking to me to fill in what's going on in the world around them. I tend to have some notes for ideas, but most things aren't finalized until they enter play, and may be the opposite, or even completely different from what I have. Of course, a significant portion isn't prepped at all, since I really don't know what the players are going to do. A lot of the plot hooks are based directly on what the players have said along the way.l

So in a "GM driven game" I don't think that the existence of the passage is always a foregone conclusion, although it could be. In some games it may always be. Instead, I see it more as a matter of responsibility. Who is responsible for determining if the passage exists or not? In D&D it's usually the DM, sometimes with the use of dice. In a Story Now approach, the dice can be an influence, and the responsibility lies with whoever's move it is, with potential complications introduced by the GM.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So why do you say that I provide examples of post-hoc consequence mitigation when I provided not a single example of that? Or why do you say that tactics don't matter in BW, when clearly they do? What points are you trying to make?

You know, I just noticed that you again snipped my post and responded only in part. If you cannot correct this behavior after being told repeatedly it's unwelcome, I can no longer believe you're responding with honest intent.

 

[tomBitonti]

But even in a system with this definition of "player agency" they don't always find the secret passage. Even if the player is the one declaring the fiction at that point in time, the dice can indicate failure, although most of them espouse the type of "fail forward" of success with complications. But if the circumstances and dice align, then the result could very well be one of failure, and in other discussions, proponents of these systems have indicated that actual failure is possible.

Regardless, my point isn't whether the passage is found or not. It's how the game determines if the passage is found (or even there).

The GM vs Player driven game is another confusing mess. To some folks, it's a game where the DM doesn't add anything during the course of play. They use a published adventure or the DM preps it ahead of time (and can even show his notes if there's a dispute), and any modifications the DM makes in the course of the game is taking away their player agency. But the players don't add to the fiction of the world, just take actions as their characters. That's not the type of GM driven game you're referring to, though.

What you're referring to is more a question of how much input the players have into the fiction of the world. In many Story Now games they have a fair amount of it, although Eero's essay advised against them having control of the fiction during the course of play. In D&D I think that there's always an aspect of players adding to the fiction outside of their characters, although it's usually more indirectly. Through backstory and if the DM works their ideas into the game. That's what I do, although they also have more direct input at times as well. For example, during the course of play, when we are in town (their home town) then I ask for their input as to what they know. For example, when meeting an NPC from town, they fill in what they know about that NPC, what their relationship is, etc. In general, regarding lore about the region, etc. we handle things similarly.

Really, I see it more as a continuum, of how much input into the fiction outside of the characters the players have, and how much input/veto the DM has with regards to that input. Most of my players don't want any input into the fiction beyond their characters and their decisions and actions. They are looking to me to fill in what's going on in the world around them. I tend to have some notes for ideas, but most things aren't finalized until they enter play, and may be the opposite, or even completely different from what I have. Of course, a significant portion isn't prepped at all, since I really don't know what the players are going to do. A lot of the plot hooks are based directly on what the players have said along the way.l

So in a "GM driven game" I don't think that the existence of the passage is always a foregone conclusion, although it could be. In some games it may always be. Instead, I see it more as a matter of responsibility. Who is responsible for determining if the passage exists or not? In D&D it's usually the DM, sometimes with the use of dice. In a Story Now approach, the dice can be an influence, and the responsibility lies with whoever's move it is, with potential complications introduced by the GM.

Presenting GM vs Player driven in a dichotomous fashion is limiting. There is a shifting overlap that erases any sharp separation. But it is useful in a directional sense, of pointing which has greater agency.

To return to the question of whether the Yuan-Ti passage exists, I thought that in certain types of games, the player could force the passage to exist. The limiting factor would be in regards to how much “authorship” resource the player had left. And to a degree, how well having the passage exist fit into the story. And, the player may decide to forgo the goal, perhaps because the challenge was too high, or because another story element became more of interest, or maybe they just changed their mind. Then the decision as to the actual existence might never be reached.

Thx!
TomB

 

[MechaPilot]

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

What is world building for?

As I see it, world building has a few purposes on both sides of the screen.

For DMs
World building is a way to exercise one's creativity and individuality. It's a way to make the game your own. It's also a way to develop a backdrop that seems to live and breathe, and not just to exist when the PCs are present. Additionally, world building allows the DM to create a world that caters to her preferences in fantasy (low-magic, high-magic, human-centric, melting-pot, distant-gods, involved-gods, etc).

For Players
World building is about discovery, exploration, and engagement. Players who don't know the setting get to learn about it and its unique features as they travel the world and interact with its inhabitants. Players also benefit from having a robust world their characters can engage with. A character's goals and motivations may not be concrete rules like alignment (no matter what one thinks of it and/or its implementation in D&D), but world building allows character goals and motivations to entwine with the world and create the fabric of the characters' lives.