What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Bedrockgames]

I am taking it here that "I" refers not to the real person Maxperson, but to Maxperson's PC in a RPG. Otherwise the example makes no sense, because being hidden backstory is a (relational) property of RPG fiction, not a property of things in the world.

First off, he is obviously talking about his character. It would take a deliberately disingenuous reading to conclude otherwise. Second, your being overly strict with word usage to pin him to an argument and position he was not taking. Concealed backstories are a property of things in the real world. Except we usually call them other things. But you could easily have something like a hidden net trap or glass wall in the real world obstructing the ditch. You are using two-dollar words to make your argument sound more significant than it is.

 

[pemerton]

Then how else are we to delineate the differences between - let's use some design-level examples:

- a game system that by design is often deadly to its PCs and a game system that by design plot-protects the PCs such that they can only die if their players allow it
- - (sub-category) a game system where simple survival is always a goal underlying any other goals and a game system where survival is not an issue
- - (sub-category) a game system where the story of the party-as-a-whole is primary and a game system where the individual stories of the PCs are primary
- a game system that by design has PCs be very little different from ordinary game-world people and a game system where the PCs are exceptional to the point of uniqueness
- a game system that delves into details of resource and treasure acquisition/management and a game system that handwaves these things

I might call your last category "gritty" or "logistical", depending on the details. Interestingly, HeroQuest revised (building on the earlier HeroWars rules) is "handwavy" vis-a-vis treasure for PCs, but has detailed rules for tracking community resources, which many other RPGs (including D&D) tend to handwave (eg D&D has no rules for tracking a village's fluctuating propserity).

As [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has said, there is no correlation between this sort of resource management and whether or not a game is hard or demanding.

The issue of typicality vs specialness of the PCs seems to have no bearing on anything else discussed in this thread. By definition, MHRP and Cortex+ Heroic PCs are heroes, not typical. 4e is similar, especially once the game moves out of Heroic tier.

Burning Wheel characters and Traveller characters, on the other hand, may be quite typical, or not, depending on how the lifepaths turn out (in BW this includes elements of decision; in Traveller it's about luck of the dice).

As far as survival and death being stakes, there is no particular correlation here to mechanical approach. BW is very gritty, but PC death is quite unlikely. (PC maiming is more likely.) It woudl be easy enough to play Cortex+ Heroic with all Stress treated as Trauma, resulting in fairly frequent PC maiming and death, but that wouldn't turn it into a logistical game - it would just make it a game with high PC turnover.

Classic D&D could be fairly easily tweaked so that 0 hp means unconscious, or otherwise out of the action for the moment, but everything else left unchanged. Now we'd have a game in which instead of hauling bodies out of dungeons to get them resurrected, we'd have the hauling of unconscious companions out of dungeons so they can regain consciousness. And instead of TPKs there would be TPC - total party captures, being held for ransom by kobolds and having either to arrange payment, or escape.

The game would have a lower PC death rate (more comprable to 4e) but would still involve tracking ammunition and treasure.

Gygax already moves the game in this direction in AD&D (with the "unconscious if not dropped below -3 in a single blow" option; plus the option granted to the GM to declare a well-played PC unconscious rather than killed) and 2nd ed AD&D took things further in this direction.

 

[pemerton]

Concealed backstories are a property of things in the real world.

You mean things like spies?

you could easily have something like a hidden net trap or glass wall in the real world obstructing the ditch.

The world is full of hidden things. But, putting to one side some deeper theological questions, they are not elements of backstory, because the world is not an authored fiction.

I have no objection to hidden things in the gameworld - most gameworld would not be very verisimilitudinous if they never contained secrets. I'm talking about particular techniques for establishing the existence of such things, and their role in the adjudication of action resolution.

your being overly strict with word usage to pin him to an argument and position he was not taking.

If [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], and maybe you, aren't interested in contrasing what a PC (an imaginary person) does and experiences with what a player (a real person) does and experiences, that's your prerogative. But you are not going to be able to say very much about RPG play or design if you adopt that policy.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

I assert that if a player's declared action does not succeed, because of the results of a randomization mechanic, then the player does not have control over his/her PC's actions.

 

[Darth Solo]

Yeah, world-building has the distinct function of Player Entertainment. It's the "left-right" view and deeper knowledge of whoever makes the check.

World-building is also GM hobby: "this is my unique setting for you players to explore. A world of my own GM imagination."

Pure imagination meeting pure exploration. The very essence of storytelling.

It's showing strangers a strange land, and it's FUN. It gives GMs a greater stake in campaigns because they know how all the pieces fit, because they designed it.

Plus, you can publish the setting for the world, like Greyhawk, Dark Sun, and Ravenloft. Imagine thousands of gamers adventuring in what you built ...

 

[Lanefan]

I would categorize them by the ends and not by the means.

Except we've been dicussing nothing but means all the way along here - why change now?

Nor is it possible to categorize all game systems in this way, you must also consider the means and techniques used in play. Some game systems might unequivocally not contain the concept of character death, but for many systems this is a point of variance between games. 4e would be an example of this.

An example of what? Characters can die in 4e, or so I gather - though it's harder to do so than in some earlier editions.

I wouldn't consider this axis to be relevant to the topic.

I certainly would. Traditional play has always been mostly about the story of the party - what does the party do as a whole - with the characters' achievements and stories a bit secondary, though not forgotten or overlooked. The sense I get from the story-now types is that play there is all about the individual character stories, with the party-as-a-whole's achievements seen as secondary. It's a big difference in style and focus: team first or individual first.

I wouldn't consider this to be relevant.

A game system where the PCs start out as heroes (e.g. 4e) as opposed to nobodies (e.g. Basic or 1e) is going to foster a completely different approach to play right from square one. The nobodies are far more likely going to worry about survival, and thus be in us-or-them "war" mode; where the pre-made heroes can treat the same hazards more like sport.

I think you are trying to imply that only in the former could the game be truly 'hard'. I think you confuse resource management for a wider category of games in which problem-solving is a factor. This is a much wider range than is encompassed by any 'CaW/CaS' axis.

Again I repeat: I'm looking beyond just combat! Game-as-war vs. game-as-sport. Combat is just one element of it.

I think there are a variety of responses to different axes of variation in games and game designs.

Oh, by no means have I hit all the axes. I was more looking at axes that played into whether a game would by design trend more towards war or more towards sport.

Again, you are caught in oppositional thinking in which being an advocate for the PCs is the same thing as "letting them win" some sort of opposed game. This is a mistaken proposition in Story Now play.

It's impossible to be an advocate for the PCs at the same time you're trying to thwart them or kill them off (within the reasonable confines of the game system); and any who claim otherwise are not being legitimate with at least one side of that claim.

If you truly are an advocate for the PCs then your ability and desire to thwart or harm or kill them is compromised by default, and thus in a sense you are "letting them win".

I would say something different, which is that the goals within the fiction are simply tools used to fulfill the agendas of the players, who do so to enjoy the game.

OK, but those goals are still different from those of the DM, who while also wanting to enjoy the game has to put herself in the position of having her goal be to more or less oppose the achievement of the players' in-game goals.

Sometimes you can go from frying pan to fire, sure. Examples aren't exhaustive catalogs.

If a scene follows another scene with a fictional period of years between then presumably the previous scene established a trajectory leading to the framing of this next scene in which it made dramatic sense for time to intervene. If the player wishes to describe that intervening time, that's fine. In HoML I would call this an 'Interlude'. Within such an interlude there would be no dice tossed and no dramatic action. It could be that the extent of the time between scenes could be determined by the content of the interlude (IE it lasts until the player describes the character re-engaging with some fiction by taking up a conflict). It could also simply be a narrative device handled in the scene transition by the GM at more or less length. Presumably this would comply with the desires of the players.

Though you're using fancy words for it, I think we might now be on the same page: there's chances now and then for the in-character party to chart their own course and make their own decisions as per what they do next e.g. do we follow up on the balrog possession or do we try to save Dumystor's family farm...or do we just screw it all and head for the coast.

Another way to describe the oppositional puzzle-game-based classical D&D thinking. I think 'Gygax Thinking' has a less controversial ring to it than '2-dimensional thinking' (but maybe a less explicit reference to the differences in thinking).

Ah.

Lan-"off now to dive into some Gygaxian dungeoneering"-efan

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is a ludicrous argument. You are going from a real world obstruction to the act of putting someone in jail and equating them. I think what is going on here is there is a huge split in how people use the term player agency. It isn't a product of some fundamental misunderstanding on the other poster's part. It is simply a product of people playing an conceptualizing the game differently and through different metaphors. Some people by player agency seem to mean something like their freedom to create in the story and setting. Others seem to mean their freedom to have their character explore a setting freely. Either way, what it seems like is going on is the term itself is being used as a proxy to advance a play style preference. Clearly you guys have different preferences. Only an autocrat would assume that means either of you fundamentally misunderstand roleplaying or having fun, agency, etc. Basically one meaning is about the player, the other about the player character. Terms like this are hard to control and change when they get into general use. I'd say, the better thing to do is just ask someone what they mean when they use a word if there is disagreement over the meaning. Debates over gaming terminology like this, lead us to miss the forest from the trees and almost always seem to take us pretty far from real table considerations.

I don't think what you're saying is very much different from what I'm saying actually. The use of the terms is not all that different, and either meaning could be justified, with context and perhaps a dash of common sense differentiating, but [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] has refused to yield, HIS exact meaning is the ONLY acceptable one, and everyone else is supposed to get off his terminological lawn!

Moreover, he then went from using a specific interpretation of terminology to (mis)interpreting myself and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] in some rather ludicrous ways. Maybe you weren't present at that point in the thread, I'm not sure how much of it you've read, as you were not posting during that phase of the discussion, IIRC. I refer to the point where Max insisted that our Story Now techniques were RAILROADING!!!!!! and removing players agency over their characters!!!??!! Pardon me if I am not prone to just letting Max define things willy nilly however he wants. He undermined my confidence that he 'gets it' a good solid 1500 posts ago! Honestly, I'm not even convinced that he debates in good faith at this point, some of his conclusions are so utterly wild and frankly just wrong.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

First off, he is obviously talking about his character. It would take a deliberately disingenuous reading to conclude otherwise. Second, your being overly strict with word usage to pin him to an argument and position he was not taking. Concealed backstories are a property of things in the real world. Except we usually call them other things. But you could easily have something like a hidden net trap or glass wall in the real world obstructing the ditch. You are using two-dollar words to make your argument sound more significant than it is.

Look, NORMALLY, I might agree with you! Seriously! However NOT WITH THIS POSTER. This guy doesn't play by the rules of interpreting things in the way they should be meant. He plays with and twists words and INSISTS on alternate and often nonsensical readings of things, not what is obviously meant. You HAVE to engage like this if you want to engage at all. Otherwise its pea soup and suddenly the whole conversation became absurd.

I'd VERY strongly advice, if you were to take an interest in that particular dialog, to go back and read the parts of the thread Max contributed. I think you'll VERY QUICKLY find that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is fully justified in his approach. I mean, honestly, don't bother, you can take it from me. It would be pretty tedious to do (though sometimes kinda amusing in a certain way).

Truthfully there are times when Max also says things that are illuminating, but I half think its by accident, I just don't know. Mostly I take him to be a hard case example of a contrarian, he's just GOT to 'win' any exchange of words.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I am not going to waste time combing through a thread. I can only speak to the posts I am seeing presently. Online I honestly dont have the time to delve into pre-existing disputes on 200+ page threads (I have a hard enough time keeping up with my own emails).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Look, NORMALLY, I might agree with you! Seriously! However NOT WITH THIS POSTER. This guy doesn't play by the rules of interpreting things in the way they should be meant. He plays with and twists words and INSISTS on alternate and often nonsensical readings of things, not what is obviously meant. You HAVE to engage like this if you want to engage at all. Otherwise its pea soup and suddenly the whole conversation became absurd.

I'd VERY strongly advice, if you were to take an interest in that particular dialog, to go back and read the parts of the thread Max contributed. I think you'll VERY QUICKLY find that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is fully justified in his approach. I mean, honestly, don't bother, you can take it from me. It would be pretty tedious to do (though sometimes kinda amusing in a certain way).

Truthfully there are times when Max also says things that are illuminating, but I half think its by accident, I just don't know. Mostly I take him to be a hard case example of a contrarian, he's just GOT to 'win' any exchange of words.

I'm pretty sure there's a contingent that thinks the same of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].

Attacking Max because another poster calls out pemerton in his response to Max doesn't address the issues called out, you know? You just look like a jerk for throwing Max under the bus to divert from the criticism of pemerton's post. Having been deeply misrepresented by pemerton and then told by pemerton that he can't be bothered to go back and see what I said to begin with, I'm somewhat sympathetic to [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]' points, here. Sure, Max doesn't behave well sometimes, and I don't agree with him quite often, but that's got nothing to do with what Bedrockgames said about pemerton's post above.