What is *worldbuilding* for?

[clearstream]

[MENTION=71699]clearstream[/MENTION]I am not following your point. Yes, as Vincent Baker has pointed out for a long time now, the core function of a RPG system is to establish what stuff gets incorporated into the shared fiction, and how. (I think this claim may need some qualification if we're talking about classic dungeon-crawling, but I'm not and I don' think you are either.)

How does that shine light on the function of pre-play authorship of setting by a GM?

But manifestly you have less agency over the content of the shared fiction then you would in a "no myth" game.

And more to the point for this thread, if the GM uses the pre-authored details of EPT to declare action declarations unsuccessful by reference to unrevealed elements of fictional positioning ("secret/hidden backstory") then it is the GM whose agency is pre-eminent.

I don't understand the second-last sentence.

As far as I can tell (by reading blogs, reading threads on ENworld, etc) most contemporary RPGing is not classic D&D, does involve rather extensive GM world building (either directly, or by choosing to use a setting authored by another), and does involve only modest player agency in respect of the shared fiction. As best I can tell, a significant amount of player action declarations have the purpose and function of triggering the GM to tell the players more about the setting (either by reading from notes, or by telling them stuff that is actually made up on the spot but that notionally is coming from the notes - "I did such a good job of winging it that the players couldn't tell!" is the typical hallmark of this sort of thing). And a significant amount of player choice is dependent on this - the players first get the GM, in effect, to provide a list of possibilities by narrating elements of the world, and then choose from among them.

Whether or not this is "fine" obviously is a matter of taste.

I'd like to explore one question in response here, without meaning to imply that other questions you raise aren't worth answering. Only that time is limited and I'd like to make progress on this strand.

Premise - For player A to enjoy agency, player B must cede them agency over some aspects of the fiction, and vice versa. Sometimes ideas will come to both at the same time, but other times one will have a thing they want to express, explore, do or introduce, and the other will have to allow them to express, explore, do or introduce that thing. If B does not, for instance if B was always editing over A's contributions, then A can't really be said to have had agency.

Example - Bob and Alice have come to be (in their fiction) in a market. I won't worry about how they got there, but Alice narrates that she will buy a rosy ripe apple from the local orchards, free from the taint of disease or infestation, paying with one of the small copper bits common in these parts. I don't think Bob can at this point just get rid of those things, without eroding or destroying Alice's agency. Bob's agency over the fiction from there then, is to add to, transmute or expand on, but not deny or destroy, Alice's contributions.

That suggests to me that the question is one of who is doing how much of what, rather than whether or not there will be pre-existing contributions that some participants will concede a lack of agency over. Concretely, there will be such contributions, and for the authors of those contributions to enjoy agency, others must give up some agency, at least in respect of those parts.

Another Premise - After a time participants in a shared fiction come to naturally rely on elements that become canonical. Elements becoming canonical is a way that world-building happens. It's not all or nothing, and it can proceed organically. Tolkien worried about genealogies because they mattered to what he was focused on creating. Maybe Bob cares about such things, and Alice doesn't give a fig, but is happy to draw inspiration from Bob's contribution.

Another Example - Taking for this example a story-focused, freeform game that I created and played with others decades ago called Masters of Luck and Death (MOLAD), participants frequently made their own notes. My memory was good so I also kept track of a lot of things for the group. Additionally, I had the original creative idea, which other participants liked so much that they wanted to enter that world and create fictions within it themselves.

That suggests to me that creating fiction isn't and all or nothing thing, and it isn't impugned by being set within or using elements that come from somewhere else. It's as much an act of creating fiction to play out the life of a fictional slave in ancient Rome, with perhaps one or two twists but many authentic elements taken as canonical, as it is to invent the city of Ryme and play out the life of a chimney-sweep there. After all, chimney-sweeps existed outside of fiction to start with, so playing one is in a sense giving up agency: accepting something already made up for one.

Contemplating these sorts of ideas, it seems to me very clear what world-building can do for contemporary RPG. Whether that is principally the work of one of the participants or is the work of all, is a side-issue. It doesn't take away from its value. Concretely, where I am so far from having this discussion is that I can see that it is valuable to be flexible about that. Say I'm a principal participant - a GM - but Alice is into weather and comes to me with a weather chart for Ryme and suggestions for how that will impact on the unfolding fiction. Maybe weather with magical elements to it. That could become canonical for us.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"ouija-board roleplaying"

While that's fair enough, I'm afraid it slightly misrepresents Ouija. The idea is that everyone touches the planchette and /moves with it/. You feel it start to move, you move it in that direction - you're helping the spirit a long, you see. So it's a bit like detecting N-rays, and it doesn't require intentional deception on the part of anyone participating...

...though it is, of course, entirely susceptible to such duplicity.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, mostly I had in mind what I just posted in reply to Maxperson - contra [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], I don't think it's "rude" for the players to interrupt GM exposition to clarifiy what their PCs are doing. That's pretty standard in playing the game.

Standard in Australia maybe, but we're polite here in Canada.

That, and from experience both as player and DM I've learned that interrupting the DM in mid-flight is highly likely to cause said DM to then forget to mention something vitally important that she hadn't got to yet.

But what you said is all good too. The GM has a duty to respect the players' characterisation of their PCs in his/her narration. In practice I think this is fairly easily achieved by back-and-forth at the table.

The DM also has a duty to allow opportunities for that back-and-forth during expositional monologues.

In the example above, the next words from the DM after she says "...you can see fire giant sentries on patrol." really ought to be either "what do you do?" or nothing at all as she stops to give the players a chance to respond to this news.

 

[Lanefan]

No. Do you really not get it? You can have a single roll to see if the attack succeeds, which incorporates everything - does the shooter have ammunition? does the target duck? does the shot penetrate armour? etc.

So the first time I miss I might be out of ammo? Hmmm....

I think as a player I'd be tracking it anyway, regardless of system; if for no other reason that it's part of my agency as a player to control and record my character's resources even if the game system in use doesn't require me to.

It's doubly bizarre that you run the line you are running as a D&D player, because D&D has never separated out the question of ducking from the question of armour penetration

Not mechanically, but the game gives enough info that if you want to find out in detail exactly why a shot "missed" you can.

Using 1e descending AC: target's AC is 10 - 2 (dex) - 7 (plate mail) - 2 (+2 magic armour) -2 (shield*) for a net of -3.

* - we've given 2 AC for shield since time immemorial, it took the game a few editions to catch up with us

If the shot would miss AC 10 (or, one might argue, if the to-hit was a natural 1) it missed entirely. If it would hit AC 10 or 9 it missed entirely as the target ducked or dodged (the dex part of the AC). If it would hit AC 8 or 7 the shield stopped it; and anything between 6 and -2 clanged off the armour.

(contrast, say, RuneQuest or Burning Wheel). Just as those processes can be distinguished in resolution mechanics, but don't have to be, so likewise the availability of ammunition does not have to be broken out.

There's a question of relevance here. In hard game mechanical terms it rarely if ever matters why a shot didn't hit for damage, only that it binarily hit or did not hit. This means going into detail as to why a shot missed is, while quite possible as I've shown, not mechanically necessary. The game doesn't care if you handwave it.

But knowing whether I've got any ammo left is mechanically necessary as without it missile fire ceases to be a useful option for me until I acquire some. And to know whether I have any left I have to know a) what I started with and b) how much of it I've used and not been able to recover.

Now if my missile fire consists of throwing rocks and I'm standing on a coarse-gravel beach then who cares? But if my missile fire consists of using a crossbow I can't just grab any old stick and use it as a bolt - they have to be tipped, and more or less the right size. Which means I'd better have some bolts on hand if I plan to use the xbow, and I'd better keep track of how many I have left as they're not something I can easily make for myself in the field.

And the same goes for wealth. Even in Star Wars where the whole franchise doesn't seem bothered with wealth*, republic credits (and the acceptance or not thereof, q.f. Qui-Gon trying to buy parts from Watto in TPM) are still a relevant thing and I for one would like to know how many I have access to.

* - perhaps because most of the stories deal with the top 1% of the top 1% of the galactic population, maybe?

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

There's no contradiction. [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] says that the agenda is fairly obvious at the point where those things happen, and the thing he mentioned in relation to Pippin was choosing between fealty to Denethor and love of Faramir. What he says we don't know is Pippin's dramatic need at the start of the story. That choice happens very close to its end.

It's not uncommon, especially in multi-character fiction, for one protagonists dramatic need to emerge only later on in the story.

It's also possible, in the type of game I envision, for all the PCs to have their dramatic needs emerge during play rather than be pre-determined by the player before play begins.

And here is the real contradiction: because your playstyle can't easily "do it all". You can't have character growth without character dramatic needs, because it's in the nature of such growth to relate in some fashion to those needs.

I completely disagree with this statement, in that character growth and development is very possible without any overt 'dramatic needs' or suchlike behind it.

I know this because most of the characters I play grow and develop in exactly this manner. They don't (usually) have overt dramatic needs or goals beyond "let's go adventuring: we'll get rich and-or die trying!".

And frankly I doubt very much that your actual play delivers dramatic arcs even remotely comparable to JRRT.

I'll freely admit that mine doesn't; but in my defense I'll also freely admit that neither I nor any of my players can hold a candle to JRRT's talent when it comes to authorship.

I'm happy to read your actual play reports that contradict my doubt, but to date you've not pointed me to them.

You won't get much out of them but here's about 34 years' worth:

Telenet 1984-94
Riveria 1995-2007
Decast 2008-present

The adventure logs are very event-based and don't often (if ever!) go into character motivations or any of that stuff, and the older ones aren't all that detailed. But, they're all I've got...

Lan-"and then you go on to quote Ron Edwards, which might just send me running for the hills about now"-efan

 

[Emerikol]

I feel that I have been around this topic before (at least a dozen times already upthread, I would guess).

In this thread I am talking about declaring actions "through the character's eyes". When I say As we travel along the river, I look out for any signs of fellow members of my order, that is an action declaration through my character's eyes. It is not an attempt to "author a story".

One way to answer my question is for the GM to just tell me. (Based on his/her notes, or his/her best guess, or his/her random rol, or whatever.) Another way is for me to make a Circles check, with the result of the check being binding on the GM as well as the player.

The second approach doesn't require me to step outside my character viewpoint anymore than rolling an attack die does.

Yes but you can't possibly know in all cases what the odds of someone from your Circle being along that river. You don't know the world. So here are the possible cases.

1. Nobody knows anything about it and a roll is made. This is a sign of a poor DM though who knows nothing about it.

2. The DM thinks it's possible given the setting, determines a probability BASED ON THE WORLD and rolls.

3. The DM knows it's impossible or extremely unlikely. Perhaps your example this case is unlikely but it is true in some situations. For example, he knows that a particular sect of a particular religion will not be out on a particular night. The player does not know this yet because he hasn't discovered it.

4. The DM knows it is certain. For example in your case, the DM had already known someone was traveling down the trail at that time. Again not a perfect example but there are times the DM knows with certainty and those times he doesn't roll.

The problem with "forcing" a DM to accept some random roll to change the nature of his campaign world is that he knows a lot about that world. Some random roll could throw all that effort out the window.

The players just don't know everything. Discovery is half the fun. And while I exercise my DM authority with restraint, I do consider the final say on something in the campaign to be the DMs.

 

[Lanefan]

Taking for this example a story-focused, freeform game that I created and played with others decades ago called Masters of Luck and Death (MOLAD) ...

I think Master of Luck and Death is about to become one of my level titles for the Monk class. Brilliant!

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If everyone at the table knows that the game is not silly, then everyone equally knows that (in the absence of some context, such as searching the home of a fairy) there is no point looking for wands in trees, as there won't be any there.

This repeated concern, from you and now [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION], that the first things players will do who actually have the power to contribute to the content of the shared fiction will be to find gold and items for their PCs, rests on the same illusion as other concerns you've expressed. The gameworld is not a reality. If you don't want a silly gameworld, it's easy to avoid: just don't author one! If you want PCs who are more than just a Gygaxian id, then build and play them.

...

What's the DC for your D&D character to flap her arms and fly to the moon? What's the DC for a 1st level character to jump into a volcano and survive? What's the DC for your 1st level fighter PC to try and kill ten orcs in one round?

There are all sorts of limits - some imposed by the mechanics, some by a shared understanding of the fiction - on what actions can be meaningfully attempted in a RPG. (The main one that trips people up in classic D&D is stuff like letting fighters move silently with a DEX check, or climb with a STR check, while forcing thief PCs to use the generally weaker percentage chances - even Luke Crane fell into this rookie trap GMing Moldvay Basic, as he reports in one of his blogs.)

So the absurd examples is really to have you answer this question: If it's not obvious by the fiction, and the rules don't give clarity, who decides yes or no?

And it's not so much about people doing absurd things like giving themselves a holy sword. It's about the players who aren't as fully invested in the story or the direction it's going and decides they are going to go someplace else. It's also about stories that aren't driven by these types of motivations. Maybe they're just serving their two weeks in the town militia on guard duty. Or the story model is more like a TV show where there are weekly things that are going on, life, if you will, and then there are the long-term motivations of the characters that are separate story arcs that are addressed as well, although not necessarily every week. Or even if there are strong motivations, the characters don't share the same motivations.

There are so many types of stories to tell, and that's what I still can't wrap my head around. Are these other types of stories possible in a Story Now game? If something is unclear in terms of success or failure, or a player authors something that other players don't like or agree with, then how is that addressed? If that's part of the job of the GM, then explain how that's really different than what we're talking about, other than perhaps the threshold where the GM steps in.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That example has zero to do with what Eero Tuovinen is talking about. [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] is just wrong to think that declaring a search for a secret door, and looking for scuff marks as part of that, is the sort of thing that Tuovinen has in mind.

And I say that I obviously need you to show me where that's wrong. Because he specifically recommends that the players don't have any authority to author the fiction outside of advocacy of their characters, other than possibly (part of) the backstory. After that point, what happens in the world around the PCs is in the hands of the GM.

"The problem we have here, specifically, is that when you apply narration sharing to backstory authority, you require the player to both establish and resolve a conflict, which runs counter to the Czege principle. You also require the player to take on additional responsibilities in addition to his tasks in character advocacy; this is a crucial change to the nature of the game, as it shapes a core activity into a completely new form. Now, instead of only having to worry about expressing his character and making decisions for him, the player is thrust into a position of authorship: he has to make decisions that are not predicated on the best interests of his character, but on the best interests of the story itself."

"Can you see how this underlying fundamental structure is undermined by undiscretionary use of narrative sharing? The fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design, this is exactly the thing that was promised to me in 1992 in the MERP rulebook. And it works, but only as long as you do not require the player to take part in determining the backstory and moments of choice. If the player character is engaged in a deadly duel with the evil villain of the story, you do not ask the player to determine whether it would be “cool” if the villain were revealed to be the player character’s father. The correct heuristic is to throw out the claim of fatherhood if it seems like a challenging revelation for the character, not ask the player whether he’s OK with it – asking him is the same as telling him to stop considering the scene in terms of what his character wants and requiring him to take an objective stance on what is “best for the story”. Consensus is a poor tool in driving excitement, a roleplaying game does not have teeth if you stop to ask the other players if it’s OK to actually challenge their characters."

That pretty much sounds exactly like what we're talking about. The player makes decision and takes actions, and the GM adjudicates (and authors) the world.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think this true to a significant extent. Also, D&D has always had a strong "power fantasy" vibe, and 4e's maths caters to that fairly well.

But 4e also gets a lot of its pacing from within the resolution context. Although most combats will be won, there are moments of loss within them. Although most skill challenges will succeed, there are moments of failure within them.

True, SCs are certainly filled with a lot of detail and plot.