What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Aldarc]

So this playstyle only really works for games specifically designed for it... that's interesting.

As is often the case, rules systems are variously accomodating to and supportive of different playstyles.

 

[Imaro]

That's not a limit on player agency any more than the orc's A.C. is. GM judgment is still a thing in Story Now gaming!

That is a limit on player agency... If I know Bob's character sucks at stealth and I want to shape the story so that he can't sneak up easily, I use the hard DC. The only way it's not would be in a system like [MENTION=9200]Hawkeye[/MENTION] described Dungeon World to be... a set DC for all actions and only your attributes and abilities modify it.

As to your example about the Orc's AC... Let me pose this question, is choosing to stick a red dragon the characters only have a slim chance to beat at 1st level into an adventure... limiting their agency as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] describes it?

 

[Imaro]

As is often the case, rules systems are variously accomodating to and supportive of different playstyles.

Oh, I agree... and that may be part of the problem with this discussion... we are trying to talk in broad terms but if the issue really is around player agency as @pemerton defines it... well then shouldn't we look at the specific games and how they do or don't support/hinder said agency? Now if the issue isn't agency but instead that he just doesn't prefer secret backstory... well there's not much discussion there as it's personal preference and not a broad declaration about the amount of agency in one playstyle vs. another.

EDIT: To expound a little further... I see no practical difference in the end result of secret backstory that allows for a hidden chute trap that drops a hero to another level vs. say MHR's ability to split a hero off from the group when it comes to actual amount of agency... In fact I'd argue the hero in the first example at least has a chance to detect the trap while in MHR it's an effect that just happens when the GM decides to spend from the Doom Pool to generate it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So this playstyle only really works for games specifically designed for it... that's interesting.

EDIT: To further expound I know he often cites the Marvel Heroic rpg and in that there are a couple of things you can do with the Doom Pool that definitely affect player agency (specifically as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] defines it) listed below.

*To use any affect that normally costs a Plot Point.
*Use special effects (SFX) that cost doom dice to activate.
*Split a hero off from other heroes or force them together.
*Activate a Hero's Limit. But first offer to pay them 1 PP instead.
*Create a new Scene Distinction (costs a D8 or higher). Anyonemay use this Distinction instead of their own Distinctions.
*To have a Villain interrupt the Action Order.
*Activate Scene or Event effects.
*Spend 2D12 to end a scene immediately. If the Heroes wereclose to winning, ask them to describe how they get most ofwhat they want and then present them with a tough choice,you win but X happens or at Y cost. If the Heroes were notclose to winning, ask them to describe how they lost or whatthey had to sacrifice (something significant) to win.

Now I understand he has an issue with secret backstory but honestly most of these effects you can create with the Doom Pool in the MH game seem to tread on the type of player agency he is advocating for... Create a new scene distinction, Ending a scene immediately, Split a hero off or force him to join up with the group... how do these not step all over the type of agency he is advocating for? Is it ok because they aren't secret backstory? Or is the infringement upon agency (regardless of it's source) really the issue...

I've questioned some of the conclusions pemerton draws, as well. And other times, I'm not familiar with a certain game system, so it becomes hard to understand shared examples.

I have only played the Marvel Heroic game a few times. It was not to my liking. I didn't know what rules system it uses and if this system is present in other games. Part of my dislike of the game is that it was so radically different from the TSR Marvel game that I grew up playing. So I think a large part of my dissatisfaction was due to expectations.

But, having said that, and adding the caveat that I'm not pemerton, my guess is that when a game has certain elements that are incorporated into the actual game mechanics, then that's something different than what he is talking about with GM backstory.

GM backstory can't really be anticipated, and isn't necessarily quantifiable. But when a game has certain clearly defined moves that players can make, and also one the GM can make, I think that the game proceeds with the expectation that these moves can and will come up.

Again....there could be a lot more to it. I only played the game a few times when it came out.

Ultimately, I think that pemerton prefers a game where the GM's actions are as dictated by the game rules as the players' actions are. That's what I'm getting out of most of this discussion, anyway.

 

[Imaro]

I've questioned some of the conclusions pemerton draws, as well. And other times, I'm not familiar with a certain game system, so it becomes hard to understand shared examples.

I have only played the Marvel Heroic game a few times. It was not to my liking. I didn't know what rules system it uses and if this system is present in other games. Part of my dislike of the game is that it was so radically different from the TSR Marvel game that I grew up playing. So I think a large part of my dissatisfaction was due to expectations.

But, having said that, and adding the caveat that I'm not pemerton, my guess is that when a game has certain elements that are incorporated into the actual game mechanics, then that's something different than what he is talking about with GM backstory.

GM backstory can't really be anticipated, and isn't necessarily quantifiable. But when a game has certain clearly defined moves that players can make, and also one the GM can make, I think that the game proceeds with the expectation that these moves can and will come up.

Again....there could be a lot more to it. I only played the game a few times when it came out.

Ultimately, I think that pemerton prefers a game where the GM's actions are as dictated by the game rules as the players' actions are. That's what I'm getting out of most of this discussion, anyway.

Fair enough, and again if the problem is just the determiner of loss of agency that's fine, but if you are proclaiming your game has more agency then I find that distinction irrelevant... a loss of agency is a loss of agency and IMO it doesn't really matter that the game gives you a mechanic to take said agency away... it's still a loss of player agency.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Fair enough, and again if the problem is just the determiner of loss of agency that's fine, but if you are proclaiming your game has more agency then I find that distinction irrelevant... a loss of agency is a loss of agency and IMO it doesn't really matter that the game gives you a mechanic to take said agency away... it's still a loss of player agency.

Perhaps, sure. I get what you're saying. I'll be interested to see what pemerton's thoughts may be on this.

If the GM in Marvel can end the scene, which of course seems to imply a limit in player agency, but can only do so when the Doom Pool gets to a certain number of dice, then that's something the player can predict, and likely even track.

So, even though this does reduce agency, it's a bit different than the Gm simply saying "no, you fail". That distinction may or may not matter to each of us. My guess is that it does to pemerton.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I assume by "PCs" you mean players? Ie the players are free to declare actions for their PCs.

I would be very surprised if there were any episodes of RPGing in which that was not true. What would it even mean to "play" a RPG if you were not free to declare actions for your PC?

Again this is the extreme literalism I am talking about here. You are taking a person's words literally, which results in you painting their position as either nonsensical or meaningless. Obviously I meant more when I said this, and it is pretty clear to me what people mean when they use agency in this way (which is by far the most common understanding of agency I've encountered at actual table play). It is about the players being able to explore freely as characters without the GM doing things to keep them on a track, etc. An example of the this would be, I have a session planned for the city of Dee, and at the start of the adventure they decide to travel east and look for business opportunities in Huisheng. They don't need things like the ability to determine what is actually there, or the ability to frame scenes, or any other of the techniques being mentioned here, for me to respect their agency. The idea of agency can be fully respected and explored in a more traditional style campaign (obviously agency can also be respected in other ways). The GM can have all the traditional powers ascribed to the GM, the players can interact with the world purely through their character, and you can have agency.

What is maddening in this discussion is people equate the GM introducing a challenge to due backstory, pre-existing setting material, etc, as constraining agency (i.e. well if you introduce 1 invincible wall you might as well be surrounding the players in walls; which is basically prison).

 

[Imaro]

Perhaps, sure. I get what you're saying. I'll be interested to see what pemerton's thoughts may be on this.

If the GM in Marvel can end the scene, which of course seems to imply a limit in player agency, but can only do so when the Doom Pool gets to a certain number of dice, then that's something the player can predict, and likely even track.

So, even though this does reduce agency, it's a bit different than the Gm simply saying "no, you fail". That distinction may or may not matter to each of us. My guess is that it does to pemerton.

Yes and no, while it seems like you could track whether the GM could do this... there's no way to tell beforehand when or if he will.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes and no, while it seems like you could track whether the GM could do this... there's no way to tell beforehand when or if he will.

But can you know if it is something he can or cannot do? Meaning, is it dependent on something measurable like the number of Doom Pool dice or something like that? If so, then the players know that the option is or is not yet available to the GM, and when it becomes available.

Again, this is where lack of familiarity with the rules system can hinder understanding.....I'm totally making assumptions on some very limited play from quite some time ago.

 

[Lanefan]

The difference from what you describe, though, is that the need for the narration to establish immersion is not the same as what you were referring to in the post to which I replied.

In "story now", the principal source of immersion should be the fact that the situation is "thematically compelling". That is, the GM - in establishing the framing - is drawing on already-available stuff that everyone at the table is committed to. So the need to build a "word picture" by reference to sensation is less. The description of the setting provides a context for action rather than itself being the engine of immersion.

In Cortex+ Heroic this is formalised via the mechanic of "Scene Distinctions" - the GM may declare up to 3 scene distinctions (and may spend GM-side resources for more if desired) at the start of an action scene. In the session I GMed yesterday, the first scene involved the PCs - who had just crossed a frozen mountain lake - commencing their final ascent into the northern mountains. The scene distinctions were Chill Winds, Narrow Defile Between the Peaks, and Unpassable Snow. This, together with the description of their adversaries (a flight of wyverns, one with a rider; and the chieftain of the mountain folk), sets the scene.

Later on, after the PCs left the village of the mountain folk, them were confronted by the Earth Giant (as they knew they would be). The scene distinctions were Boulders Aplenty, Terrible Drops (which had an attached mechanic increasing the risk of PCs falling down them should they or the giant edge towards them, or break away their edges) and Clear Skies (the PCs had climbed so high there were no more clouds about them).

I have to say, this absolutely boggles my mind: that the mechanics of a game system limit what the DM can describe in a scene!

Now in fairness these particular scenes you reference might not need much more to get the point across. That said, "Chill Winds" doesn't tell me if it's snowing (reduced visibility?), or bright sunshine (snow blindness?), or what...which means I'd have to ask. "Narrow Defile..." needs a direction, which when coupled with the time of day (particularly if it's sunny) would tell me whether the defile is well-lit or is in deep shadow at the moment. Little things like this - if you describe them up front players don't have to ask about them; and yes I'm saying it's usually better to describe in too much detail rather than too little.

These distinctions establish a context in which the PCs (as directed by their players) take action. They can also be operated upon - eg the PC sorcerer used his magic to dismiss the Unpassable Snow, and again to create eldritch walls and nets to neutralise the threat of the Terrible Drops. In an earlier session, a different PC was able to rescue villagers in need of rescuing by succeeding on actions to eliminate a Frightened Villagers scene distinction.

Though any of this could have (and likely would have) been done without the Formalized Mechanical scene descriptors, simply as part of the run of play.

Other systems handle this differently: but in 4e, for instance, one way to convey the really salient elements of a situation is via mechanical specification using the rules for traps, hazards, terrain powers and the like. The setting comes to life through its role in resolving the action rather than simply via description.

I'll give it this much: 4e does terrain well.

But, let's try an example. The party enters a study in a castle; they're here looking for a map and have decided that if the castle has a study that's the first place they'll look...and so they either explore until they get there or are framed straight there (no difference for these purposes). In either case, were I to go into detail my narration of the place might go something like:

"You've found what appears to be - or have been - a study. It's a small room - maybe 15' on a side - with stone walls, rug-covered floor and plastered-over ceiling; there are no other obvious exits other than the door you are in, and no obvious occupants. A leaded-glass window across the room from you looks out north across the lawn toward the gate house, and allows enough light in that vision here is not really a problem; the room is otherwise unlit. The place clearly isn't used often - dusty gray sheets cover most of the furniture, some of the shapes hinting at two chairs and a table beneath - and everything is covered with a thick layer of dust, slightly stirred up by your arrival. There are but two pieces of furniture not covered by sheets: an overstuffed armchair beneath the window whose sheet - on the floor nexxt to it - has clearly fallen off at some point, and a solid-looking wooden desk just to the right of the door. On this desk are a small box of some sort, an inkwell with what's left of a quill sticking out of it, an empty wine glass, and what might be some papers - it's hard to tell under the dust. The desk also has a couple of closed wide shallow drawers just below its top. A large tall sheet-covered piece of furniture against the west wall might be a bookshelf or a shallow wardrobe - again, hard to tell. What do you do?

So, no mechanics here, just a description in enough detail to forestall some obvious questions and provide lots of things to interact with. Would Cortex+ Heroic allow this, in this wording?

Once the source of "drive" or momentum in "story now" is appreciated, you can see the error of description in your (2). The PC tries because s/he has hope! And the player, rolling the dice, has the same hope. So there is not disparity at all, but rather congruence!

That's my (1). In (2) the player, while still having the hope, also has the meta-knowledge that a good roll guarantees success; which the player in (1) - just like the PC in the fiction - doesn't have.

Lanefan