What is *worldbuilding* for?

[tomBitonti]

So I haven't posted in this thread in some time because I didn't think I had that much to add. But I've been keeping my eye on the discussion.

However, something in my D&D campaign happened and I'd be interested to get the feedback of the posters in this thread.

Now, I can provide more details if requested, but I think a broad description will suit. My PCs are in Chult. They are there to pursue long term campaign goals. A couple of them also have more short term, personal goals in mind that they may pursue in Chult. Our campaign began at the same time as 5E, but we've incorporated longstanding elements from past campaigns from all editions. The game uses the entire D&D multiverse as its setting (although I've taken plenty of liberties with canon and lore as needed).

So I've decided to incorporate the WotC adventure Tomb of Annihilation into our campaign. There are many reasons for this; the fact that both Ras Nsi and Acererak, prominent villains in Tomb, have both been longstanding parts of our campaign world is a big one, but I also decided to use it because I liked the idea of putting the PCs up against a classic dungeon. The fact that Chult was such an important location in our campaign and then was also the setting for ToA was also very interesting.

So the nature of the ToA adventure, without delving into spoilers, is that there's a Death Curse that afflicts anyone who has previously been raised from the dead in some way. This leads investigators and other characters interested in this dark phenomenon to Chult, the seeming source of the curse.

Three of the six PCs in my campaign have received some kind of raise dead magic (two by the Revivify spell, one by Raise Dead). So they are afflicted by the curse, which means that their HP maximum goes down by 1 HP per day.

So they have a ticking clock to deal with this situation. Now they have to decide to set aside their personal goals and look into this Death Curse situation, or continue pursuing their goals and risk the effects of the curse becoming much worse. To grant context, they are tantalizingly close to a major step forward in their main goal.

I feel the introduction of the ToA content has added a dimension that previously didn't exist in the campaign; how important is their main goal? Are they willing to set it aside to deal with another concern? Are they willing to risk the lives of half the party by ignoring the Curse?

If we consider the main goal of the PCs as the Player Introduced content, and the ToA/Death Curse as the GM Introduced content, then in that case doesn't the GM Introduced Content add meaning to the Player Introduced content? Doesn't it make a statement about how badly they want to achieve that goal? Or at least, can't it potentially say that?

How the PCs choose to prioritize these goals says something more about them than simply pursuing one goal, no?

Without GM Introduced Content, is there ever any way to present two potentially opposed goals and force the players to decide which one their characters are going to pursue? In a Story Now game, would such only be possible by taking the goals of two or more PCs and then presenting them as goals in opposition? Would having a player who came up with two goals for his character really qualify if the game placed these two goals in opposition?

If anyone wants to share their thoughts on this, I'd be interested to hear.

A couple of things relating to running ToA specifically:

Failure of the ToA mission would have very major impacts to the game world (and to the players, in particular, those with the curse). The impacts are so large that player goals are completely eclipsed.

The death curse mechanic doesn't fit all games. You'll want to consider the implications relative to the power level required to complete the dungeons and how quickly the players must advance in the time frame allowed to them by the curse.

The players suffering from the curse have diminished effectiveness, which grows worse over time. That probably won't be fun for the affected characters.

The ToA dungeons are real death traps.

For a longer campaign, I'd consider tweaking the curse substantially. Personally, I'd make it slower and more insidious.

While perhaps not important from a balance perspective, I'd lift the "gods aspects" material and remove some of the re-use limitations. The mechanic seems wonderful, just not implemented nearly as well as I imagine it could be.

Oh, and the Chult environment outside of the Tombs is rather superb sandbox material.

From the perspective of World Building and Player Agency, I'm thinking this introduction rather takes away player agency, in that they will have very little time to pursue other goals. That is, unless the curse mechanic is adjusted.

Thx!
TomB

 

[pemerton]

What is the difference between not finding the passage (and the passage may or may not be there) and not finding the passage (because it is resolutely not there)? Or perhaps not finding the passage (which exists, just not where the player expected it to be; or maybe it is there but the player isn't skillful enough to find it).

Because one is the result of making a move in the game, and having the dice roll fail; and the other is the result of someone else authoring your failure and telling you a story about it.

As a different example, compare with a player's request "to find a receptacle for blood," dripping from a corpse which they just found, which was presented in another thread as an example of a player creating an item in scene.

What are you asking me to compare?

What you are referring to here is an example from my Burning Wheel game. The player declared an action for his PC, and it was resolved via a Perception check.

 

[Lanefan]

My first response to this is just as it has been to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]: if there are players who don't want to exercise significant agency over the content of the shared fiction, of course that's their prerogative. But that doesn't mean they're nevertheless exercising such agency! They're clearly not, because they don't want to!

In your example, what does the rogue player add to the fiction - nothing except that his/her PC looked around and found nothing. As far as RPGing is concerned, that's the most minimal result a player can achieve by declaring a move - my PC did this thing and nothing interesting resulted from it. I mean, suppose that a RPG session consisted of nothing but that. What sort of session would that be?

Frustrating, and at the same time realistic - sometimes things just don't pan out the way you want them to.

And it's these times of frustration that makes times of success all the more rewarding.

I've highlighted one key phrase you have used - "randomly decide". If a player is playing his/her PC, who has an agenda and personality (of the sort that Eero Tuovinen talks about in relation to "advocacy"), then why is the player going to suddenly ignore that and do something else? If the player's agenda is for his/her PC to find a wand, or to find gold, then s/he can just say so.

If the player's agenda is for her PC to get rich or to accumulate magic items then you're wide open to this sort of thing.

In my 4e game, one player does play a PC whose goal, since 2nd level, has been to collect the Rod of Seven Parts. But the player doesn't just look behind trees. First, that would be silly, and the player is not interested in a silly game. (These are the sorts of genre considerations that [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has rightly emphasised in many posts).

Silly, perhaps, but legal by the letter of this narrativistic type of system where success on an action declaration cannot be denied.

Second, the player knows that it is a 4e game, and hence that "plus" items (of which the Rod is one - +1 per part, and so the only +7 item in the game) are parcelled out on a level-appropriate basis. So he knows the rules of the game don't permit a 2nd level PC to find all the parts of the Rod.

The whole idea of "treasure parcels" just makes it all sound so predetermined in the meta-game...do this much adventuring and you'll get this much treasure. Kind of like a salary for adventurers.

How dull.

But I digress...

Rather, from time-to-time I make it clear, from the framing, that a part of the Rod is available to be found (here are two examples). The stakes for the player are not will the PC find the rod but rather is the PC prepared to do what is necessary to restore the rod, such as - eg - helping bring down the duergar by taking their fragment of the Sceptre of Law. The ultimate question about the Rod, not yet resolved, is whether the player will choose to have his PC fully restore it, even though this is prophesied to bring on the Dusk War.

Yeah, that Rod is always good for at least seven adventures to find the bits plus at least one or two more to use it.

A different example - from a different campaign using a different system - has already been discussed extensively over the past several pages. One of the players in my Burning Wheel game wrote, as one of his PCs starting Beliefs, "I won't leave Hardby without an item that I might use against my balrog-possessed brother". The opening scene of that campaign had that PC at a bazaar in Hardby, with a peddler offering to sell him an angel feather. What was at stake there was whether the angel feather would in fact be useful against a balrog. It turned out that it was cursed (narrated by me as a consequence of a failed aura-reading check), and as a result the PCs was banished from the city by Jabal, a leader of his sorcerous cabal.

One question that's been bugging me about this example: where were the rest of the PCs during this sequence? Or had the party not yet formed?

The relevant constraint on framing and action declaration is not 'What will happen if the PCs find the wands or gold they are after?" It's about what sorts of actions the system permits the PCs to declare, and what actions they want to declare (given the PCs they are advocating for), and then how the GM is going to frame scenes that invite those declarations, and how consequences - especially consequences of failure, but sometimes (as in the Cortex+ example) also consequences of success - are narrated and given appropriate mechanical effect.

One of the true appeals of RPGs is that as player you're (in theory) free to try anything, no matter how ridiculous. There shouldn't be any system-based limits on the actions players can declare or have thier PCs attempt. There should and must, however, be some limits on whether those declarations can succeed - in other words, the DM must be able to outright say 'no'. The onus for maintaining consistency, genre-appropriateness, balance, etc. should be on the DM, not the players.

The Burning Wheel game uses a map - Greyhawk - and so the broad geography is established.

Along with several boatloads of history, lore, and canon; and by extension a bunch of baked-in expectations from any player familiar at all with the Greyhawk setting. When using a homebrew setting these all have to be defined and then narrated by the DM, as it's not all done for her and is not in the least familiar to the players ahead of time.

I start with Hardby because it allows for the hills where the mage PC lived in his tower before his brother was possessed by a balrog (player-authored PC backstory), and also for forest for the PC bandit to come from, and is not too far from Celene, which is the home of the PC elf. (I don't think it's a coincidence that the centre of Gygax's GH maps has basically all the geography one needs to support the standard range of fantasy and S&S tropes.)

A mistake I keep making with my own settings is that I don't find a way to do this; to put all the races etc. together in one reasonably compact area.

The players have already established, via PC build, that certain persons (eg the balrog-possessed brother) and organisations (the sorcerous cabal) exist. Within these broad parameters, it is a "no myth" game.

Except, of course, for all the baked-in Greyhawk lore etc. as noted above. The C+ H and Traveller ones seem more like no-myth; but this one really can't be.

I am currently a player in a Burning Wheel game. My number one priority is inhabitation of my PC. I want to play my character.

Here are some key elements of my PC:

Beliefs
The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory
I am a Knight of the Iron Tower: by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory
Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!
Aramina will need my protection

Instincts
When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle
If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself
When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning

Character Traits
Disciplined
Fanatical Devotion

Relationships
Xanthippe (Mother, on family estate)
Aramina (sorceress companion)

Reputations & Affiliations
+1D aff von Pfizer family
+1D aff Order of the Iron Tower
+1D aff nobility
+1D rep last Knight of the Iron Tower
+1D rep infamous among demons - intransigent demon foe​

(That last reputation was earned in play rather than part of original PC build, after my PC stood in battle for several rounds against a demon before it was called back to the hells.)

My PC's skills include a bunch of knightly stuff (sword fighting, armour and shield training, riding, command, etiquette, etc) plus religious training, plus cooking.

The sum total of this means that I am not remotely interested in [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s intersections. There is nothing in any of that that speaks about architecture. Spending time on intersections would not let me inhabit my PC; it would be a distraction from it. I want the GM to put me into situations which make me think about my family, about my order, about my god, about Aramina. About cooking and campfires. These are situations that will let me play my character.

Any situation imaginable will let you play your character; and many situations will force you to think (in-character) about things other than those you listed.

Your character seems an honourable sort, and one of his 'instincts' is to defend the innocent - this seems like a ripe opportunity for a DM to narrate (at some random time when you're en route to doing something else) that you see a slave being beaten, to challenge that instinct and see what you do about it if anything. The DM here would be giving you a multi-layered choice: divert from one goal to another or not, and whteher that diversion will be temporary or permanent.

On a more meta scale: the game isn't all about you; and the game-world or setting doesn't revolve around your PC.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Because one is the result of making a move in the game, and having the dice roll fail; and the other is the result of someone else authoring your failure and telling you a story about it.

Both are the result of attempting a move in the game and failing. In the fiction the result is exactly the same in either instance. At the table the only differences are a) the mechanics behind said failure, and b) the level of knowledge those mechanics give to the player regarding the reason(s) for said failure.

To expand a bit on b): if the player rolls poorly she knows her failure is due to her PC's incompetence or bad luck; where if the result is simply narrated by the DM (probably after rolling some dice whether needed or not) the player doesn't know if her failure is due to incompetence/bad luck or due to there in fact being nothing there to find at all.

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

On a more meta scale: the game isn't all about you; and the game-world or setting doesn't revolve around your PC.

If the point of the game is an enjoyable collective-storytelling exercise, and the story about the characters, it's about them, and setting is just a setting for that story...
...if.

 

[Maxperson]

agenda[/I]. It's a means, and a very generic one. Why does the rogue want to enter the castle? What would s/he risk to do so? If s/he is entering stealthily, what provocation would make her reveal herself? These are the sorts of things that show us who the character is, what s/he wants, what her goals are, what sort of person s/he is.

Of course it's an agenda. Go to a meeting sometime and see what little things are on the agenda. It can as simple as get a cup of coffee. Also, while those questions do show character, character is not an agenda, so I'm not sure why you are putting those questions here.

This is a very narrow conception of what a PC's interest and agenda might be - after all, it seems that you can achieve it without actually having to play the meaty parts of the game (I've never yet heard of a D&D campaign where the real action was finding taverns that sell wine).

But even your example actually does require the GM - if the GM asserts that no taverns have any wine (maybe a disease destroyed all the grapes? maybe they all sold out?) then you can't get drunk. Likewise if the GM declares that you meet no NPCs (they're all staying home on the occasions your PC happens to turn up in town) then you won't get to show off your dour personality.

Even for what you describe, you need the right framing from the GM.

So first, I didn't say it was his only goal. Second, while it does take a DM playing the game, it does not require DM help to accomplish. Even if there is no wine, I am still showing his personality and goals by making the attempt, and those goals are being addressed by the DM when he informs me that the tavern is out of wine. I don't need to be successful for it to be addressed and for my goal to come out, and the DM is forced to address it when I state I am looking for fine wine at the tavern. It isn't as if it's an option for him. Nor do I need his help in bringing my goal out in the game.

First, who gets to decide that this campaign world contains northern barbarians? (Maybe the tales of their existence are all false. Maybe all the vikings in longships are really gnomes using disguise self and other illusion spells.)

And once we get over the existence on the barbarians within the setting, you need scenes to be framed that actually allow going there to happen; and that allow becoming king to happen. As [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION] points out, there are any number of ways this framing can fail to obtain. It might be as simple as every time you look for a boat there isn't one; every time you try to cross the mountain passes they're blocked by snow; and every time you try to teleport a strange magnetic-magical field blocks your way.

This all goes back to the fact that these are fictions. They have no reality. No one can do anything in respect of them unless a story is told about them. Given the allocation of functions in a typical RPG, the players depend upon the GM to tell them certain stories (eg "OK, after struggling through the mountains you crest the pass - beneath you, you see the rolling hills of the barbarian homelands. What do you do?").

It's a given for my example. Maybe they are in the south, east, west, equator. It doesn't matter. The setting will have barbarians established in it somewhere. As for framing, I am forcing the framing to happen by stating to the DM that I am going north(or east, west, etc.) to take over the barbarians. The DM has to respond. As with the wine example, he has no choice by to address my goal.

Now, as for your bad DM examples, those need not apply. As I said to [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION], bad DMs are bad and any game they run is going to be bupkis. Assuming that the DM is not bad, I'm not going to encounter no boats every time I look for one, or every pass blocked by snow, etc.

Why do you guys persist in constantly giving examples of bad DMing as if they actually mean something to the discussion?

What you call "information" is just a story told to the players by the GM. If the play of the game doesn't involve the players being told such a story, what have they missed out on? It's not like they were all sitting in suspended animation in the time that might otherwise have been spent on that! They've been playing a game which involves whatever it is that the players cared about - fire giants, in this notional example, and maybe other stuff as well (what happens. for instance, when they learn that Obmi the dwarf is an advisor to the giants, but also the cousin of their patron from the dwarfhold?). While your player were writing down stuff about intersections and gems, the ones in the example were making decisions that are fundamental to the goals, relationships etc that they have established for their PCs.

No, it's not just a story being told. Giving them the option of which way to go at an intersection invovles more than just story. You also persist in "overlooking" that during the journey to the giants, things will happen that will aid them in their ultimate goal of defeating said giants, so it's not just "writing down stuff about intersections and gems".

Walking up to a giant patrol is your wording, not mine. In the real world people sometimes get seen unexpectedly. Maybe the PCs rounded a corner and - lo and behold - there was the giants' cavern, with a group of giants looking straight at them!

And in my example the players didn't express any desire to be stealthy. They wanted to organise their potions, and that was resolved, and then they headed off. If the particular players I was writing about in my example had wanted to be stealthy, than I would have indicated that!

How much do you require to be said in advance of a journey about what happens at the end of it? Having to play guess the event and prepare for it for all the possible events that could happen seems tedious and would waste a ton of time.

ultimately there is going to be a moment when the PCs arrive at the cavern. At that moment they are liable to be spotted if anyone is looking!

Why? There are tons of ways to prevent or greatly minimize the chances of that.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=29398]See, this is wrong. The teleportation was final. Read the actual play report - I didn't add a "step". In fact, I sent an email telling the players what gear their PCs got from the Raven Queen. No checks were required. They were gifted their gear and then arrived at their destination. It was a powerup of exactly the sort that Lanefan decries!

Teleportation is an instantaneous and uninterrupted transport from one location to another. It's only final if that happens. If you interrupt it, not only is it not final, but it's no different than what I described with trying to find the bazaar instead of just putting the PCs there. You've added a step, which you described as not being final earlier in this discussion. You can't have it both ways.

Of course my game includes GM agency. Who do you think frames the scenes? But look even at this example - why did I, as GM, choose the Raven Queen to be the PCs' benefactor? Because the players have chosen to make her salient.

That applies to pretty much every game of pretty much every style. DMs are exceedingly unlikely to interrupt a teleport to have a visit with the Raven Queen unless she is already an important part of the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Or it's tangential, or is merely building up to something later.

Right, I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] noted that he thought the cultist cave was particularly useful, but I could see almost any of the others as potentially fitting some sort of character concept goal, though some might be fairly niche.

The concept of the Caves generally though? Certainly you could find a way to work clearing them all out into a decent number of character's paths, but MOST will probably only want to hit one cave. The others become more like hazards to avoid than anything else.

So there's nothing WRONG with B2 here, its just not super 'right' either.

This early in the campaign, how much of this really matters? Maybe after this adventure, once the PCs start exploring more widely, answers to these questions may present themselves and-or become relevant; but in the here-and-now of the Keep and the Caves, who cares?

Well, I guess why I ask is that a LOT of characters, even the ones mentioned in the original post, are likely to find those questions interesting and related to their goals. Is the wilderness there because it is untamable? Because it is a frontier that is being pushed back? Because its a set boundary, and if so why? I mean, if I am going to build a keep in the wilderness those are very interesting questions indeed! They probably interest a thief too (exactly how much can the law be enforced and reach in there?). Likewise for a cleric, is this region something that can be converted to the faith? Is there some magic in there for wizards?

Now, I understand what you're saying, and in No Myth there is obviously no answer to these questions, except what comes out in play. Things can come out in play in your style too, but I sort of feel like if you're going to be creating setting, then these would be the big questions to answer. In effect B2 is very thin as a location because we have no insight into how it works or why it is here, etc. Only knowing what the borderlands ARE would really address that.

Where to start?

Fighters building keeps and clerics building temples are long-term goals that - in 1e - carry at least one specific mechanical requirement: that the PC be of at least a certain level. MUs needing components and thieves seeking riches are both kind of ongoing goals that don't really have a defined point at which the goal can be declared as achieved. Thieves starting guilds and MUs building their own labs are those classes' long term goals analagous to the fighter and her keep.

But why does YOUR fighter Mark the Mighty want to build a keep? I mean, EVERY SINGLE FIGHTER wants to do this by default, all of them. It says nothing about your character unless you can provide some motivations. That's the issue with the initial characters in relation to Story Now, as presented in the earlier post. Simply declaring a class, as was done here, doesn't provide the material required for Story Now. It is easy to provide it, and B/X D&D certainly imposes no impediment to doing so. It just isn't manifest in either the system nor the module in question. Thus I question how these materials support or are 'suitable for' Story Now.

And the Caves can directly help in achieving all of these. There's treasure in them thar caves, so the immediate goals of the thief (riches) and MU (components scavenged in the field and-or bought with said riches) are satisfied, while still remaining as onging goals as you can never have enough. And the Caves provide all four classes with a boost toward achievement of their name-level goals (the keep, etc.) by being a fine source of experience points which build (a bit) toward the level required by the stated goal. Why they each have their own particular goal is, for purposes of play, mostly irrelevant - particularly at such a low level when achievement of the goal is so far away the Hubble couldn't find it.

Lanefan

Yes, but again, these are generic goals which every D&D adventurer ever was endowed with at level 1 by default (unless the player decreed otherwise). While they provide a very basic lampshade over the question of why the PCs are adventuring, they're not exactly great material. The consequence being that the Caves themselves are just very generic locations.

I mean, if you consider it, why does a guy who simply has a hankering to make a castle go and poke his head in these caves at TERRIBLE RISK to his life. I mean, the chances of his coming back alive, by the B/X rules are actually pretty crappy! Sure, some people are crazy, incredibly foolish/overconfident, or driven by some deep-seated personal need, to take great risks. All we get here is "because there might be some gold there." Its pretty thin gruel.

 

[Maxperson]

Thanks for your response.

Sure thing!

Every player I have met is a distinct individual with their own preferences. It isn't as simple as just good GMs and bad GMs, either, every GM has strengths and weaknesses.

It really is. While every DM has strengths and weaknesses, only bad DMs are going to shut down player goals the way you described. A mediocre DM might not engage them as well as a good DM will, but he's going to try.

Some GMs just don't cater to player goals, or do so in a fitful fashion.

These would be bad DMs.

Safe to say I still prefer a more collaborative approach.

Which is absolutely fine. We all have our preferences as you mentioned above. I just don't think bad DMing should be a factor when considering which playstyle you prefer. Bad DMs are going to wreck any game they run regardless of playstyle.

Quiet players can't rely on being heard once the game starts, they often get drowned out by louder, pushier players.

This is something the DM should handle. I have a player who does very well now, but when he started he was quiet and often got overrun by the more forceful personalities in the game. I took the time to address him directly for input, even to the point of telling him that he can choose to do what he wants for his PC when the other players would give "suggestions." After a while he grew more and more confident, and now he jumps right in with everyone else.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Isn't the whole premise that these orcs etc are attacking the local humans?

Well, TBH, this is one of my beefs with this module, in terms of its suitability as more than just a basic stage for looting action.

Its an utterly illogical and pretty much bizarre situation. Here we have this keep, which houses several 100 people IIRC. Now several 100 people need about 96 people worth of full-time farmers, at about 10 acres each, so a good solid 1000 acres of tilled land, which we would assume would need to be pretty much near the castle walls, practically speaking.

Yet there's no sign of any agriculture in the area. There's no mill, no barns stuffed full of hay (they would be BIG) etc. Nothing. And there's about 150 tough, vicious, warlike humanoids 2 MILES AWAY in a series of caves. Humanoids who likewise show no signs of having any means of support or filling their bellies (and I can only imagine that humans, dwarves, elves, etc would do nicely).

I don't think this situation is stable. I don't think the scenario, as described in the module, would last even 3 days. So its hard to really understand how it all fits together and what the PCs should expect to happen if they do various things. I can't apply ANY sort of 'premise' to anything because it is all so utterly nonsensical to begin with!

Now, I'm sure people can post a blizzard of hypothetical explanations and rationalizations and theories. No doubt, but the point is its supposed to be a module, a product that is 'ready to go'. Now, you can simply ignore all that and make sure that all the players contemplate doing is playing 'murder hobo' and killing off the Caves inhabitants while they sit around and do virtually nothing about it. OK, you can do that. It is hard to base any kind of dynamic, evolving plot line on that sort of basis. As a 'beer & pretzels' kind of an exercise, there's nothing lacking in it really, but it should stay there, firmly.