What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Maxperson]

Side note: thanks to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] for saving me loads of typing these last few days.

Lanefan

You're very welcome!

 

[pemerton]

Here's one way that B2 restricts player agency: if a player declares "I want to meet an alchemist in the keep" then, as the module is written, that action will fail.

That doesn't restrict their agency at all! They declared an attempted action (thus exercising their agency) and were told that action failed.

<snip>

Just like reality, in that regard - if I go to the mall and look for a hardware store, no matter what I do if the mall doesn't have a hardware store I ain't gonna find one there.

A gameworld isn't a real world. The real world has objective existence, and I can literally interact with it. A gameworld is a fiction, which is authored by the game particiaptns who then tell one another about it.

If the GM decides - by way of authorship - that there is no alchemist, despite the player wanting it to be the case that his/her PC meet such a person, that is clearly an exercise of GM agency over the content of the shared fiction, which correlates with an absence of such agency on the part of the player.

If neither I nor the players acknowledge their existence then yes, they might as well not be there.

I'm not sure how refusing to acknowledge the existence of "story now" RPGing also qualifies you to be an expert on what it does and doesn't involve!

Or to put it another way: a general prerequisite to discussing the difference between X and Y (eg GM aiuthorship of setting vs storynow) is to acknowledge the existence of Y as well as X.

From a DM-driven standpoint this could be achieved by sending the party into B2 and simply adding an item into the cultists' treasure that gives protection from demons. (thus when the confrontation later occurs the balrog's powers are migitated or blocked, though the possessed brother can still beat him up conventionally)

No one disputes that fictional outcomes in a GM-driven game might be the same as in a player-driven game. They might be the same if someone just told a story also.

But RPGing is an activity, and what is relevant to the play experience is the nature of the activity.

The difference between confronting a situation in which you find out if an item is the one your PC needs, and having the GM tell you "By the way, this thing you found - it's good against balrogs", is pretty marked.

Have you ever played, or even read the rules for, the games he mentions? (Sorcerer, DitV, HeroQuest, etc.)

No, and it's irrelevant whether or not I have done so when analyzing Eero's text for what it says and implies.

Lan-"and by the way what is it that makes Eero any more of an expert on this stuff than the rest of us?"-efan

I thikn what make Eero Tuovinen more of an expert than you on DitV, Sorcerer etc is that he has read the rules for those games and played them. Whereas you - as you just posted - have not.

I would also say that it's highly relevant to reading a description of the technques of those games that you haven't read them. Eero is not posting an abstract description of something he dreamed up one day. He's posting an account of an actual type of GMing. If yoiu think what he describes applies to traditional AD&D play, then that's enough to show that you've missed his point!

 

[Lanefan]

A gameworld isn't a real world. The real world has objective existence, and I can literally interact with it. A gameworld is a fiction, which is authored by the game particiaptns who then tell one another about it.

And the closer that game world is set up to resemble a real world in how it operates the better: more consistent, more believable, and easier to relate to.

And before you say "the real world doesn't have magic ... [etc.]" ask yourself - what if it did? How would the real world look and function if it had D&D-style magic in it, but very little or no modern technology? Answer that (in whatever manner suits you) and boom: you've got a starting point for building your world.

If the GM decides - by way of authorship - that there is no alchemist, despite the player wanting it to be the case that his/her PC meet such a person, that is clearly an exercise of GM agency over the content of the shared fiction, which correlates with an absence of such agency on the part of the player.

I'm not sure how refusing to acknowledge the existence of "story now" RPGing also qualifies you to be an expert on what it does and doesn't involve!

You misread me, I think. I'm not refusing to acknowledge the existence of story-now RPGing - it'd be mighty hard to do that around here! - but I am denying that player agency is solely (or even mostly, or even significantly) defined by how much control the players have over the content of the fiction.

Or to put it another way: a general prerequisite to discussing the difference between X and Y (eg GM aiuthorship of setting vs storynow) is to acknowledge the existence of Y as well as X.

I can acknowledge the existence of both X and Y while at the same time saying that one of them is IMO built on a foundation of loose sand.

But RPGing is an activity, and what is relevant to the play experience is the nature of the activity.

The difference between confronting a situation in which you find out if an item is the one your PC needs, and having the GM tell you "By the way, this thing you found - it's good against balrogs", is pretty marked.

Or to rephrase: the difference between having just the item you need handed to you on a platter because your successful action declaration authored its existence, or the serendipitous joy on realizing this item you found on a seemingly-unrelated adventure is in fact exactly what you've been looking for all along.

I thikn what make Eero Tuovinen more of an expert than you on DitV, Sorcerer etc is that he has read the rules for those games and played them. Whereas you - as you just posted - have not.

On those games, yes. But taking what he's read and trying to apply it to gaming as a whole, which is what he's doing in that eassy? I can do that too. So can you.

I would also say that it's highly relevant to reading a description of the technques of those games that you haven't read them. Eero is not posting an abstract description of something he dreamed up one day. He's posting an account of an actual type of GMing. If yoiu think what he describes applies to traditional AD&D play, then that's enough to show that you've missed his point!

The impression I got was that he was trying to apply his theories to all RPGs, including all versions of D&D.

Gotta run - a game to play.

 

[pemerton]

if the holy sword is but a stepping stone to the PC's real goal of eventually defeating Orcus in single combat, then what I posit could still be true: simple success on an action declaration could put a holy sword in the PC's hands. Me, I'd rather be able to flat-out say 'no' to this and instead build an adventure or two or six around the locating and recovery of such an item.

Here is a quote from an actual play report:

Attention now turned to the Aspect of Orcus - it had been trapped by channelling power from Vecna, and the player of the invoker/wizard had already pointed out that Vecna would be alerted if the PCs tried to steal secrets from it; now, a successful Religion check (made easily against a Hard DC, with a +40 bonus) allowed the invoker/wizard to make contact with Vecna and ask him to rip information of a secret entrance into Thanatos from the mind of the Aspect

<snip>

With the secret entrance into Everlost, Orcus's palace of bones on Thanatos, now acquired, all that was required was to cast the Planar Portal to teleport there: I read out to the players the description of Thanatos and the palace from the MotP, and they were glad they hadn't tried for a frontal assault

<snip>

The session ended there, with the PCs stepping through their portal into the secret way into Orcus's throne room.

I took pity on the players, who have not had a treasure drop for a long time, and decided that the Raven Queen intercepted their teleport to Thanatos to give them some power-up items (some other gods also got in on the action, for a few blessings etc).

In one episode of play, we have both (i) the players establishing a secret entrance via successful resolution of declared actions, and (ii) items that are useful for defeating Orcus being handed over in a minor transition scene!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Dear [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] Does the education system in your country teach logic? I'm afraid it is a lost subject in mine, for which I humbly apologize!

The GM deciding that there is no secret door in this particular passage 10 years before play does not affect player agency, any more than the DM declaring that in this pseudo-medieval fantasy world there are no space ships, and no, you can’t have one.

If you are playing a standard narrativist model game, however, then some of these things remove player agency. Because by design, some of these things are within the agency of the players, and some of these scenarios or mechanics take that agency away.

That does not apply in other games where the agency that the player has, by design, is different.

If you want to design a football game where the players can alter the circumstance of scoring, or where they can make decisions they are currently within the realm of the referee, you have not altered the agency of the players in the original game. They still have 100% player agency, even though there is now a game that gives them more options.

You, and others, continue to attempt to assess the agency of the players by the lens of your specific game or game model. I have a problem with that because the implication is that others are “doing it wrong” or it raises the possibility that players who don’t make the distinction between games expect something different from other gameplay models.

But I think you are entirely wrong about what constitutes player agency in other games. The goals of the design of the game, the goals of the GM, and the players all help define what agency the players want/get, along with what agency the GM wants/gets.

What your saying is basically equivalent to "My Honda Civic has just as much horsepower as your Mercedes S Class, because we measure it numbers of hondapowers and in that system the two come out the same, so they're identically powerful."

This argument is ridiculous to state it bluntly. If you were to have made it in a college-level logic class you'd have been roundly roasted for it. Two things which are not equivalent do not become equivalent simply because you refuse to measure them in a way that actually measures they way that they are qualitatively different.

Not only that, but the other argument here "you never had X, therefor if I don't give you any of X than you can't possibly be lacking X!" is frankly worthless and doesn't fly at all.

We are not assessing anything by any 'lens', we are measuring OBJECTIVELY how much actual control the players have over the actual narrative in actual games of different types. The fact of control over the narrative is independent of the type of game, I can easily define it and measure it in a way that references nothing more than the essential facts of RPG play (that there are characters played by the players and a narrative that they participate in).

There is absolutely no point in belaboring this anymore. For whatever reason you guys seem to perceive that imputing a difference in agency to the style of play you favor that is different from that of another style is something you cannot countenance and that must be denied even by the most arcane twists of illogic. The fact that walking down this path leads to such absurd positions as "more choice by the players is actually railroading by the GM" only EMPHASIZE the magnitude of the discord between your position and reason.

I really honestly don't think any type of play is better or worse in any objective way than another, and I have both GMed and played in games of all descriptions for decades. I also agree that there is a continuum between DM and player driven games. I don't disagree that players have choices of certain types in all games. But the notion that a Story Now game somehow has no extra dimension of freedom to act (agency) simply doesn't stand up to examination. I don't even see why you make this argument, but I feel like it isn't really a worthwhile discussion anymore, and maybe we should move on to some other aspect of the thread?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Maybe call this step "pre-framing"?

I see it as somewhat essential in terms of providing player/PC choice in how (or if!) they approach a given situation.

Here, for example, the party on hearing that pre-frame might back off a hundred yards and cast a bunch of fire-protection spells before advancing further; or send an invisible scout ahead to check for the presence and-or deployment of any foes while the noisies stay put; or take steps to mitigate the smoke's effect on thier breathing, etc. If they're just plopped into the room and the giants see them right away, bang go those options.

Lanefan

I think a reasonable GM would be amenable to a player saying "hang on boss, can we approach carefully?" Yes, in some minor degree he's let the cat out of the bag by stating that there are some giants who will spot the party, but that's hardly surprising news and even relatively stupid and unwise characters would be likely to anticipate that possibility. So it isn't really a HUGE issue. I'd also point out that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] invented this example off the top of his head and maybe it isn't very 'polished' in that sense.

Anyway, we agree that the players should have some chances to assert 'character agency' in terms of stopping, preparing, etc. I don't think its necessary to let them turn aside or change their plans in between significant scenes because they've already declared what they want in that respect. Telling them they reach the other end of a road they already chose to travel down isn't 'railroading' for instance. If the players wanted to have stipulations "we won't travel more than 1 day's riding down the road before stopping and reconsidering" they certainly have a chance to interject that sort of thing in play. I would call it a negative characteristic of a GM if they really try to jam the action forward so forcefully at the table that the players never get a word in edgewise to say theses things. I don't think Pemerton would object to that characterization.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It says a lot that you'd frame it that way - that the players need a new GM rather than I-as-GM need new players, which is equally the case. Couple that with the fact that if I really dislike running what I'm running I can arbitrarily shut it down (and have, in the past) and it kind of implies a very player-centric view; that the players need for a new GM outweighs my need for new players. Interesting.

Eh, I guess. I mean, I don't put a huge stock on the way I stated it myself. I'm happy to state it as "the GM needs different players", as that is equally the case. I don't really 'take sides' in those sorts of questions, normally. I just see it as a failure of consensus on agenda. The group should be reformed with different people in it.

If the holy sword is the end goal they yes, this all applies.

But if the holy sword is but a stepping stone to the PC's real goal of eventually defeating Orcus in single combat, then what I posit could still be true: simple success on an action declaration could put a holy sword in the PC's hands. Me, I'd rather be able to flat-out say 'no' to this and instead build an adventure or two or six around the locating and recovery of such an item.

Well, I don't see why in a Story Now game this wouldn't or couldn't also transpire. If said weapon is understood to be powerful and rare, wielded only by an extremely elite type of person, then I would say genre convention would virtually dictate that acquiring it would be a difficult task.

Alternatively you could go all 'Elfstones of Shannara' on the whole thing and hand it to the PC on day one. Now he's got to deal with figuring out if he can use this McGuffin, living up to the expectations of its wielder, and constantly in fear of those who mark him for possession of it. He may well be 'fated to wield the Sword of Sir McGuffin' but that doesn't have to be a cakewalk!

True, but the "rocks fall, everyone dies" criticism gets bandied about all the time - might as well chuck the other extreme out there once in a while.

Lanefan

Hehe, Some of this conversation can be a little frustrating, but I always feel like at some level we can all just play together. That's always been my strength as a gamer, only the most horrible game won't amuse me and be fun. Anyway, I'd love to run one of mine for you and some of the other people in this thread. Doubting that will happen, but its an amusing idea at least!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's not entirely accurate. I would already have told them about the flagstones on the floor, so I've taken care of my duty to inform them. Since I'm not rushing them from place to place, they would have every opportunity to say, "I examine the flagstones near me to see if one is raised or uneven." Since there's no way in hell that I pre-authored the individual flagstones, I'd tell them okay, fine, and set a DC so that they can find out the answer.

With the intersection, it's not a matter of scale so much as a matter of change. As I mentioned above, I would tell them if the flagstone passage turned into a smooth cave like floor. Similarly, when going down a passageway, an intersection represents a change in the environment that I would alert them to.

I don't think you're saying anything different here than I am. Its a matter of technique of play, perhaps also bearing on narrative pacing and some other things, but not a matter of agency.

The problem I have is that if they don't get the "front porch" scene, then unless the players are expected to declare all manner of moves in advance about what might possibly happen, the DM is railroading the players through places by making decisions for the PCs. If they are expected to declare those moves in advance, the game becomes a giant game of chess where you have to stop the momentum of the game so that the players can strategize about every situation they might encounter and give the DM a plan. That wastes a bunch of time on things that the players won't ever encounter. Most of the possibilities won't turn out to be the true situation.

As I said in a post written after yours here I think that the players are well within their rights to call a halt to the GM's construction of the next scene and ask about precautions and whatnot. It is probably more convenient for the GM to create a small hiatus to allow for this in a situation like the one narrated about the fire giants, as any reasonable GM can likely anticipate players desires here. In fact you could almost see it as framing an anticipatory scene in keeping with a, minor and local, agenda of succeeding against the fire giants. Alternatively the players might simply take charge and say something like "OK, the party leader raises his right hand in the sign of parley and approaches the giants..."

As for the thing about wasting time in these preparations. I find it odd that you would say this when the whole GM directed mode of play is rife with these kinds of possibilities, and the main goal in developing Story Now and No Myth techniques was to avoid this problem! I don't stopping outside the fire giant cave to allow PCs to 'suit up' for a coming encounter is exactly a waste. There are no 'might have beens' in Story Now play, things are encountered because of reasons.

 

[Maxperson]

As I said in a post written after yours here I think that the players are well within their rights to call a halt to the GM's construction of the next scene and ask about precautions and whatnot.

I would personally find that to be very unsatisfactory. Having to re-wind things that have happened is a personal pet peeve. I'll do it when I've screwed up AND if that screw up has worked against the players, but not for any other reason. I'd much prefer that the DM not play our PCs in the first place and give us the option as we approach the enemy.

As for the thing about wasting time in these preparations. I find it odd that you would say this when the whole GM directed mode of play is rife with these kinds of possibilities, and the main goal in developing Story Now and No Myth techniques was to avoid this problem! I don't stopping outside the fire giant cave to allow PCs to 'suit up' for a coming encounter is exactly a waste. There are no 'might have beens' in Story Now play, things are encountered because of reasons.

It's different. If I have to tell the DM all the different actions I take in response to all of the possibilities that I can think of, I'm wasting a whole lot of time and thought on stuff that will never be relevant. In a normal DM facing game, you might take precautions against possibilities, but not in the same way. We aren't going to spend a lot of time thinking of strategies to use if the baron is a vampire, if the baroness is a vampire, if the kid down the block is a vampire, etc., or maybe one of them is a lich and all those strategies, or maybe one of them is a...

We might grab some stakes and holy water, though. The strategies will happen as wander the baron's castle and see signs of vampires, like no mirrors or food that has no garlic in it. You only have to spend all that time on contingencies if the DM is the type who will take control of your PCs and just walk you into things if you don't tell him everything in advance.

 

[Maxperson]

In one episode of play, we have both (i) the players establishing a secret entrance via successful resolution of declared actions, and (ii) items that are useful for defeating Orcus being handed over in a minor transition scene!

YOU took pity on them and YOU decided to intercept the teleport to give them items. How is that not YOU engaging in DM agency?