What is *worldbuilding* for?

[AbdulAlhazred]

The original Marvel Superheroes of the '80s was also like that. You had resources of a specific ranking and you made purchases by rolling on a chart.

Right, that might have been the origin of the whole thing. That game was way ahead of its time in many respects.

 

[Emerikol]

Ron Edwards at the Forge did this. It made a lot of people angry.

I think Ron's problem was he tried to explain why and how people liked something instead of just categorizing things. So people got mad that they were or weren't this or that. It was stupid.

 

[Emerikol]

Because the real world is not a fiction that someone authored. Asking who has agency over the content of the real world doesn't make any sense. The real world isn't content/I], it's actual stuff that enters into actual causal processes.

Just because someone sets a chess board on the table, doesn't mean you don't have the agency of moving the pieces. I think the big gap here between our styles is that you assume a lot is getting made up on the spot and it's either the DM controlling whats made up on the spot or the PC's.

The world is built. Mostly ahead of time. If a player asks about something here is the process I would go through.

1. Is it obviously something that exists. My map shows a building with a window. So no further need to check anything.

2. Is it something that likely exists if any sort of effort is put out. Like finding a stone on the side of a road. If there is no pressure then I just say yes. If there is pressure, then I examine the designed world's notes and I make an educated guess at what the probability is that a stone is right there and I roll.

3. Suppose they need information about some magic item they found. Is it rare? Is it common? The design of my world will dictate those things. So again I roll a die in most cases based on the probability that someone in this village knows that information. Of course, if I already know that a powerful archmage lives in the village perhaps I roll and then just say yes regardless.

4. On the other hand, there are times when I know with certainty that the answer is no. This is somewhat rare and mostly revolves around well defined features.

5. For NPC's that I've bothered to detail out very well, I will know how easily they are bribed or not and I will roll a die to see if they succeed in their bribe attempt. In other cases, suppose it's a guard that I haven't detailed that well. Then I will probably base it upon how well I believe guards in general in this area are corruptible. I definitely have the locale detailed out enough to make a very educated guess.

You see I am merely a moderator. The world is created. Yes there is a limit. I'm not God. But I can make reasonable assumptions based on what I do know. The closer to the center of the sandbox someone is the more likely I am to know the exact details. If it's about some far off Kingdom, and the question is very specific, then I may have to roll a dice.

My players though enjoy knowing that the world mostly exists. I'm not making it up nor are they but rather they feel they are actually in a living breathing world. As DM, I work hard to foster that feeling. Why? Because that is fun.

I am not big on Player fostered world matter that is not closely related to their character. If they want to define something about their background or they want to detail out an organization they are building up or something, they will meet with me and mostly it will go. I can reject something though if it clashes with the world. The players wouldn't have it any other way. They want the world to be consistent and with a high degree of verisimilitude.

 

[Maxperson]

But if they're playing in generic fantasy land, which covers MOST D&D campaigns more-or-less, then its a little less clear why that shouldn't be allowed, or that the players ruled it out.

Are you saying it's unclear that the DM should allow the players to go after their goal, or that it's unclear whether the players agreed not to go after that particular goal?

So, now Story Now techniques are 'killing player ideas'??? Ummmmm? Huh? What? Gotten lost in a maze of posts or something? Sorry, you're not making any sense to me here. The universal position is that players knowledge of what they want is deeper than anyone else's and that their interests should be played to, that's NOT killing their ideas!

Deep breaths, man. Deep breaths.

You were talking about my style of play and said that the DM was not obligated to follow the players goals. I said that yes, the DM is obligated through the social contract not to be an asshat. You responded with it not being a universal thing and that you assumed that it was a broader discussion than just how you and I do things. That brings us to my last response which was that not being an asshat and allowing players to follow their goals should be a universally held position, as not doing so kills fun. At no time was I saying or implying that Story Now kills player ideas.

 

[Campbell]

Here's what I find entirely frustrating about this conversation: I cannot speak to how [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] runs his game or [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] runs his game unless they clearly speak to the principles that determine how they frame situation. I get that you guys identify with the orthodoxy, but that profession does not seem to line up with any particular text. There has also been indications at least from [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] that seem to run counter to orthodox play. Also the reluctance to address the actual social environment that exists at the table is something I find vexing. No matter how much we choose to ignore them the very real social pressures that exist at our tables inform and influence the way we play these games. We see this in the way [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has indicated more goal focused players have been pressured to abandon those goals in games he has played in and run. How am I suppose to address my criticism when my criticism of the orthodox play culture is met by those who pledge fealty to the orthodox culture, but are not part of it as I understand it and have experienced it respond with not in my game?

The other frustrating thing for me is the continued insistence that matters of technique, principles, and play environment should not matter to players in the face of continued criticism of alternative play techniques, principles, and social expectations that divert from mainstream thought. I see only an insistence that no meaningful expectations should be brought to play.

I will take this moment to explain why this stuff matters to me: as far as I am concerned what is theoretically permitted at the table does not matter. What matters to me is what each participant is socially free to do, what behaviors they are socially rewarded for, what we are socially free to object to, and how we are expected to respond to one another. It does not matter if I can theoretically declare an action if no one else will accept it. It does not matter if there is freedom of action if the social expectation is that we should be following the GM's adventure to the T. It does not matter to me if a player can declare a bunch of stuff about their character if no one else cares and the GM is socially free to treat a player character character as if they landed from an alien spacecraft in all the ways that matter.

For the type of play that I like the most what I want is a sense of vigorous collaboration. I want everyone to bring something to the table and for us to find out together what everything really means. It's important to me that we all play with integrity and passion because the moment demands we do so. The most fundamental requirement is that we are all fans of each others' characters and that our focus is on them. Nothing is more crucial. I don't care about individual creativity. I care about shared creativity. The interesting part is when we get to mess with each other's stuff.

 

[Maxperson]

I get that you guys identify with the orthodoxy, but that profession does not seem to line up with any particular text.

That's going to be difficult, especially in 5e where they write vaguely and to encourage multiple styles of play.

Also the reluctance to address the actual social environment that exists at the table is something I find vexing. No matter how much we choose to ignore them the very real social pressures that exist at our tables inform and influence the way we play these games.

We haven't ignored the social environment. We address it every time we mention the social contract.

How am I suppose to address my criticism when my criticism of the orthodox play culture is met by those who pledge fealty to the orthodox culture, but are not part of it as I understand it and have experienced it respond with not in my game?

This sentence makes no sense. I need you to explain it more clearly so I can understand exactly what it is that you are trying to say.

The other frustrating thing for me is the continued insistence that matters of technique, principles, and play environment should not matter to players in the face of continued criticism of alternative play techniques, principles, and social expectations that divert from mainstream thought. I see only an insistence that no meaningful expectations should be brought to play.

By who? I haven't seen a single person insist that no meaningful expectations should be brought to play. Even [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] who is probably the most traditional of those who are in this discussion hasn't said that.

I will take this moment to explain why this stuff matters to me: as far as I am concerned what is theoretically permitted at the table does not matter. What matters to me is what each participant is socially free to do, what behaviors they are socially rewarded for, what we are socially free to object to, and how we are expected to respond to one another.

This is going to vary from table to table with the social contract.

It does not matter if I can theoretically declare an action if no one else will accept it. It does not matter if there is freedom of action if the social expectation is that we should be following the GM's adventure to the T. It does not matter to me if a player can declare a bunch of stuff about their character if no one else cares and the GM is socially free to treat a player character character as if they landed from an alien spacecraft in all the ways that matter.

Okay. Nobody is saying that you have to follow the adventure to the T. That's railroading.

For the type of play that I like the most what I want is a sense of vigorous collaboration. I want everyone to bring something to the table and for us to find out together what everything really means. It's important to me that we all play with integrity and passion because the moment demands we do so. The most fundamental requirement is that we are all fans of each others' characters and that our focus is on them. Nothing is more crucial. I don't care about individual creativity. I care about shared creativity. The interesting part is when we get to mess with each other's stuff.

That's fine. You can opt for the story now style

 

[Aenghus]

Any RPG involves two somewhat-separate activities, the game itself, and the social event around the game, meeting up face to face or online, catching up with each other, and other activities and rituals that become associated with the game. How much people care about the game itself, or the social event varies hugely.

Most games can tolerate passengers, people who attend the game but don't participate.

I get the feeling that conventional GM-driven games can more easily facilitate casual or less-invested players. The player can generate or be given a PC, often a simpler one, and the GM can handle the bulk of the work to customise the game experience to the aesthetics and mechanical preferences of the particular player. This can translate to not punishing players for a lack of system mastery. More casual players have a detailed gameworld to interact with, and can take small actions in the gameworld that lack the inherent weight of actions in Story Now games.

Story Now games seem to demand a lot more investment from players to pay off. I'm not saying that casual players can't participate at all, but a lack of mechanical engagement or system mastery will limit their interaction with the game (unless there's fudging). Similarly, I've seen GM-driven games that insist on high system mastery from all participants, as that's the aspect of the game the group emphasises. I've seen other GM-driven groups that emphasise roleplay and downplays rules.

RPGs permit an infinity of content and options, but for reasons of sanity and practicality etc most groups place voluntary limits on what they use. These limits can be on rules, content, standards of social interaction etc etc.

I know some players like to argue and debate, sometimes to levels I find personally belligerent and unacceptable. Conversely, I prefer a more collaborative game with a clear social contract, that some might deem boring, though it certainly isn't to me or my players. It's a big world, room enough for all. We don't have to play in the same game, and don't have to aim for watered-down lowest common denominator gaming.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Story Now games seem to demand a lot more investment from players to pay off. I'm not saying that casual players can't participate at all, but a lack of mechanical engagement or system mastery will limit their interaction with the game (unless there's fudging). Similarly, I've seen GM-driven games that insist on high system mastery from all participants, as that's the aspect of the game the group emphasises. I've seen other GM-driven groups that emphasise roleplay and downplays rules.

I don't know. I don't think there's any specific degree of system mastery or player skill/experience that is demanded by Story Now IN GENERAL. Many such systems are very simple and easy to master. Moreover, if the emphasis is really on the STORY part, then the mechanics are mostly a way of expressing that. There's not so much of a problem as there might be in a game where you better understand how Fireball works, or else you'll toast the party! In a game where you declare what you WANT to happen, then that's a much more natural language. Not saying all Story Now games are like that, some like BW are quite complex, mechanically. I think, at worst, it isn't worse than with other types of games. Probably over all things are about the same. How friendly a game is probably depends more on the table than the rules.

 

[pemerton]

in a typical coin-based medieval-fantasy setting I can't imagine not tracking wealth.

Besides, if people don't have wealth what are the thieves supposed to steal?

No one is saying people don't have wealth. I'm saying that there is no wealth mechanic.

There are other ways to adjudicate the results of an attempt at theft than changing numbers on sheets under a "gp" heading.

The DM placing some things that might be interesting has a use even if the players/PCs don't find those particular things interesting at the time: it informs and-or reminds the players (and PCs) that there's more to the world than what's right in front of their noses and- in meta terms - it also quietly serves notice that neither the players nor the DM are required to stay tied to whatever story path they might be on.

Given that there is no "story path" in the games I run, there is no need to "serve notice" in the way you describe.

And I don't need to "inform the players" that there's "more to the world" by narrating irrelevant stuff either. I've never had any trouble conveying the scope of the world in my games when I've wanted to.

"Sometimes dangerous" automatically means "interesting" because as soon as there's danger then either combat mechanics (for combat) or some other sort of hazard-resolution mechanics (for other hazards e.g. landslide or getting lost) come into play; with all the attendant risks of bad dice luck leading to someone dying or losing a pile of gear or whatever.

This assume we're playing a wargame or something similar. But otherwise there's no reason to spend time on this stuff if it's not interesting.

"You make your way through the Underdark for several arduous weeks before arriving at a lava-filled cavern that looks like the one the dwarves described to you. Every make a DC 20 Endurance check - if you fail, you're down a healing surge when you arrive."

That's enough to convey a dangerous and challenging journey through the Underdark, if it's not where the action is going to be.

even though there might not in the end have been any risk to the PCs at all you and they can't know this until the trip is over; and assuming your game world has weather patterns similar to ours the odds are very good that at least one or two significant weather hazards would arise during a trip that long. Never mind monsters or hostile inhabitants of an area.

<snip>

In a setting where a journey from Washington to Tokyo is potentially dangerous and certainly time-consuming, when the players state they want their PCs to make this journey, a DM who says in response words to the effect of "OK, you're in Tokyo" is being far too easy on his PCs via bypassing all the risk and danger of the trip. (though he's also denying them some possible xp they might have accrued in dealing with said risks...)

I don't play RPGs to model (with incredibly weak models!) what might happen to random people travelling from Washingto to Tokyo.

And I can frame as many challenging scenes in Tokyo as I can in a voyage thereto. Which give the players just as much opportunity to play and advance their PCs.

Maybe War Machine sees a car crash and he can decide to save people or else go on and finish up what he's doing. Instead of proceeding to New York he stops. OK, that could easily be considered "challenging a character's belief", but I wouldn't want to overuse that kind of ploy. Its fine as a way of illustrating the "price of being a hero" and creating a dilemma that helps define the character, but constantly dangling such things along every path would be silly. Dangling utterly unrelated things along the way is just gumming up the works IMHO.

<snip>

I also don't agree about your 'pacing argument' that there has to be 'trivial stuff' along the way to make the 'good stuff' stand out. There are a lot of ways to produce pacing and rising and falling tension. Cluttering the story with trivia is crude at best IMHO.

<snip>

I certainly don't try to introduce pointless little 'intersections' that lead nowhere and just bog down play. I can create a break in the tension in a fun and interesting way instead, or the players can do that.

Right. War Machine saving some car crash victims while flying back to DC from his fight with Titanium Man is just colour. We don't normallly need to spend time on it - if it matters at all, it can be narrated briefly in the course of framing the next scene.

I can opt to miss out on BORING things in an RPG. That's one of the major attractions. I don't have to deal with things that aren't interesting. Yes, the GM COULD invent something interesting for me to do along the way, or he could end up boring me. If I chose my own destination with an eye to what I wanted to do, then chances are extremely good that I will have fun there.

Agreed.

Nobody is dictating character actions here. Just narrating the effects of player choices. The players stated they wanted to travel to the giant cave, so they did. Its literally absurd to call that 'railroading'.

I'll go further: it's not railroading to tell the players that their PCs have been spotted by sentries.

 

[pemerton]

Just because someone sets a chess board on the table, doesn't mean you don't have the agency of moving the pieces.

Sure. Those are actual things that a real person does in the real world, involving various physical things (pieces, board) understood to have a certain siginficance as game pieces.

The clearest analogue in a RPG is declaring an action for your PC, and rolling dice to see whether or not the action succeeds.

The biggest difference between chess and a RPG is that a RPG involves a shared fiction, which provides context for action declaration and action resolution.

I think the big gap here between our styles is that you assume a lot is getting made up on the spot and it's either the DM controlling whats made up on the spot or the PC's.

No. In the context of "GM-driven" RPGing, I mostly wrote about the GM reading things from, or referring to, his/her notes. It is [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] who has insistied that even in GM-driven RPGing most stuff is being made up during the course of play.

The world is built. Mostly ahead of time. If a player asks about something here is the process I would go through.

1. Is it obviously something that exists. My map shows a building with a window. So no further need to check anything.

2. Is it something that likely exists if any sort of effort is put out. Like finding a stone on the side of a road. If there is no pressure then I just say yes. If there is pressure, then I examine the designed world's notes and I make an educated guess at what the probability is that a stone is right there and I roll.

<snip>

5. For NPC's that I've bothered to detail out very well, I will know how easily they are bribed or not and I will roll a die to see if they succeed in their bribe attempt. In other cases, suppose it's a guard that I haven't detailed that well. Then I will probably base it upon how well I believe guards in general in this area are corruptible. I definitely have the locale detailed out enough to make a very educated guess.

This is all more-or-less as per Gygaxian dungeoneering. As I said in the OP, I think it breaks down once worlds get remotely verimilitudinous.

Eg a PC goes to a baker in a moderately sized city to look for a mince pie. Does the baker have one for sale? What is the probability?

At a beach, what is the probability of some driftwood being within reach?

In a bar, what is the probability of someone starting a fight if a PC is rude to him/her?

And do the players know these probabilities? If not, how are they meant to meaningfully declare actions for their PCs?

there are times when I know with certainty that the answer is no. This is somewhat rare and mostly revolves around well defined features.

This is an example of what I describe as "hidden" or unrevealed backstory being used to defeat player action declarations, by being treated as an aspect of the fictional positioning that determines the outcome, although the player didn't know about it.

In classic dungeon play, a significant goal of play is for the players to learn this stuff - ie to learn, by means of "exploration", the content of the GM's notes. But in "living, breathing world" play I think that that sort of goal becomes much harder, as the parameters of the "exploration" task become almost completely open-ended.

You see I am merely a moderator. The world is created.

<snip>

My players though enjoy knowing that the world mostly exists. I'm not making it up nor are they but rather they feel they are actually in a living breathing world. As DM, I work hard to foster that feeling. Why? Because that is fun.

<snip>

The players <snippage> want the world to be consistent and with a high degree of verisimilitude.

I think there are some non-sequiturs here.

As a GM, I work hard to foster a feeling of a "living, breathing world", with a high degree of consitency and verisimilitude. My own view is that I do a reasonable job - the gameworlds of my campaigns seems as rich and evocative as most examples I read about on ENworld, for instance, and moreso than many.

There is no general connection between these goals for setting, and having the setting authored by the GM in advance so that a signficant goal of play is the players learning what that is. If players enjoy play oriented around such learning, well, obviously that's their preference and their prerogative. I'm just denying that there is any special connection betwen that particular technique, and a rich and verisimilitudinous setting.