What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Maxperson]

That's a perfectly reasonable example. My point is that, in every sort of game, however it is run, these sorts of things arise, and they OFTEN drive the entire game. In fact games which lack any of this at all are hard to drive, period. They can work, to an extent, as just "we want treasure", but even that doesn't work WELL.

I agree that these sorts of things will arise in most, if not all games. However, a DM who gives thought to that sort of conflict will in my opinion be a better DM than one that just allows these things to come up by chance. In my experience, players enjoy these sort of challenging conflicts, excepting when it's something like a catch 22 that causes your paladin to fall from grace.

Your example is very similar to one of my own PCs, and that was in 1e. The GM in that case was pretty good about playing to our interests. Still, he was ALSO infamous for railroading! He would have had a lot better game, IMHO, if he'd had something like DW (but this was the early 80s up through the mid 90s).

I think railroading was much more common in 1e. The game was still fairly new and DMs were going through their growing pains AND many of them were young.

 

[Maxperson]

Castle Blackmoor, from Dave Arneson's campaign, is right beside the village of Blackmoor.

Outside of D&D there's Pavis and the Big Rubble from RuneQuest's world of Glorantha, which are adjacent.

I've not been able to figure out how close Castle Greyhawk was to the City of Greyhawk in Gary Gygax's original campaign. The distance must be relatively small though.

Cool. That still doesn't make it a very common thing, which was my point. Very few dungeons are like that, and mostly when they are, it's because teenagers.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But I think we can talk meaningfully about processes of establishing constructs of the imagination. We can - and people often do - talk eg about how a film was scripted, filmed, etc.<br>

<br>Sure, but its all fuzzy. Its hard (and you are a philosopher of some kind, you know better than I) to even talk about CONCRETE THINGS in definite terms! <br>
<br>

<br>
I think talking about mental activity is not that productive in the sort of conversation we can have on these boards! That's why I tried to focus on <em>talking</em>, which is the shared, social manifestation of that mental activity.<br>

<br>Well, it has the virtue of being something we might objectively agree about the qualities of, if we're not too persnickety. <br>
<br>

<br>
The "embodied in the GM" claim is obviously controversial eg @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=23751" target="_blank">Maxperson</a></u></strong></em> described it as worse than a "red flag" (a "red neon sign" I think was the phrase used).<br>

<br>Someone didn't like something I said on the Internet! News at 11!!!! <br>
<br>

<br>
But again the notion of "embodiment" heads towards imponderables. That's why I've tended to focus on <em>narrating</em> or <em>telling</em>. These, again, are shared, social events.<br>

<br>I think its 'ponderable' as a statement. The GM is literally the setting, in classic styles of play. ALL setting information, all environmental information of any kind, and all decisions relating to how the environment works, how the rules apply to it, etc. is entirely a function of the GM. More importantly, how the setting REACTS to the players, or ACTS against/for them (or in spite of them) is a GM function.<br><br>I agree, these are 'shared social events'. The problem with getting any more specific is, you have to point to specific styles of play, specific game systems, specific TABLES, and even specific examples of play. Is there a way to generalize and create categories of interactions? I mean GNS was obviously an attempt to categorize SOMETHING, but I'm not sure it was interactions. Those seem to be a concern there, but not the sole focus. So maybe a different language needs to be employed.<br>
<br>

<br>
As you present it, but with my translations into terms of <em>talking</em>, it seems to look like this: a player says "I do X", where "I" denotes the PC; the GM narrates results/consequences, having regard to the parameters of the world.<br>
<br>
I think there are three main types of <em>X</em> in RPGing.<br>
<div style="margin-left:40px">(1) <em>I go to . . . .</em>. The relevant parameters are the world map/key/encyclopedia-like description. The GM tells the player what his/her PC see/encounters. There is a difference between this and just reading the notes/description the GM is working from. <em>What underpins the difference?</em> I've conjectured that second-personality is part of that.<br>
<br>
(2) <em>I look for/recall information about . . .</em>. Knowledge and search checks are the paradigm here. This is more likely to involve a check than (1). If things go according to plan, the GM tells the player what it is that his/her PC discovers or recalls. Again, there is a difference between this and just reading the description the GM is working from. Is it related to fact that the player is seeking the information so as to solve a problem?<br>
<br>
(3) <em>I inflct condition PQR on such-and-such a part of the gameworld</em>. This includes attempts to attack, to persuade, to demolish, etc. In this sort of action declaration, the outcome is extrapolated by some combination of application of the mechanics and GM intuition about the "physics" of the situation. The more the GM is relying on intuitions about the "physics", the more this can start to resemble (1) and (2). The more there is reliance on mechanics, the less it will resemble those.<br></div><br>
Even if the above was reasonable as a starting sketch, there's a lot more to be said - eg <em>what motivates the player</em> to declare an action for his/her PC? How does the GM's narration of results/consequences feed back into that motivation?<br>
<br>
But any analysis has to start somewhere!

<br>
<br>OK, but I would reduce your 1, 2, and 3 to 2 things, effect and affect. Effect is when you take an action to change the state of your environment, and affect is when you take an action to change the state of your knowledge OF that environment (obviously they are often tightly coupled, but even in real life this division is possible and is used in behavioral science). <br><br>Again, though, I think once we get much past this categorization we can't just talk in general terms about 'all games'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree that the game isn't about one particular thing, except perhaps fun. I'm not sure that I agree that story is comprised of multiple conflicting stories. The stories that differ slightly don't have to be in conflict, and I don't think there will be many, if any major deviations in the story we are sharing.

I think there are many cases where this is true, but I've played enough to know that there are many cases where it is NOT true! I've had players tell me almost completely different interpretations of significant events more than once. Like they attended different game sessions or something. Anyway, I'm certainly not hostile to the idea that there's SOME degree, most often quite a lot, of consensus. Its just that you never really know! I can't easily test the GM's understanding of the situation, except by trying things.

Hidden things can be a problem, as are unforeseen consequences. As for what's important, I think that is determined by the actions of the players and the descriptions the DM gives. If a player wants to make sure a window is securely shut, that window becomes something significant and it will be addressed. If the DM is describing a chest of gold and an iron cobra with glowing green eyes sitting on top of it, that's pretty obviously going to be something significant. If no one addresses/emphasizes a detail, then it's not going to be something important, unless it's a hidden detail that has to be found first, such as a map in a drawer.

It strikes me as a rather narrativist way of putting it That is, I would say that things are only important which the players focus on and MAKE important.

Yes, of course. Hats can be shared and the style of play and game being played will affect things. I was just pointing out that in the traditional sense, the DM is a referee as one of his duties. I also agree that neutrality is impossible to achieve. That doesn't mean that DMs shouldn't strive to achieve it. That way any deviance will typically be minimal and almost certainly unintentional. It won't have the same impact as the DM who likes to insert his powerful DMPC into the party, or act to keep his NPCs alive when the party in all rights should succeed in killing them.

Yeah, well, I think we all agree that certain kinds of bias are no good, certainly if pushed too far. OTOH I think DW's 'the GM is a fan of the PCs' is a really good solid concept which I have always followed in all games. I mean, you can still kill 'em, you just have to be cool about it

 

[pemerton]

The problem with getting any more specific is, you have to point to specific styles of play, specific game systems, specific TABLES, and even specific examples of play. Is there a way to generalize and create categories of interactions? I mean GNS was obviously an attempt to categorize SOMETHING, but I'm not sure it was interactions. Those seem to be a concern there, but not the sole focus. So maybe a different language needs to be employed.

<snip>

I think once we get much past this categorization we can't just talk in general terms about 'all games'.

I'm very happy to get specific about particular episodes of play!

But in the same way that we can talk in general terms about "story now" or "the standard narrativistic model" or "PBtA-style" games, we can probably talk in general terms about other sorts of RPGing. For instance, what's the broad dynamic of AP/module-focused play in which the players "work though" the pre-authored adventure? I just don't think talking about agency is the most insightful starting point for discussing that sort of RPGing. Something about the experience of the adventure, how that is communicated, etc, seems more apposite.

If a player wants to make sure a window is securely shut, that window becomes something significant and it will be addressed. If the DM is describing a chest of gold and an iron cobra with glowing green eyes sitting on top of it, that's pretty obviously going to be something significant. If no one addresses/emphasizes a detail, then it's not going to be something important, unless it's a hidden detail that has to be found first, such as a map in a drawer.

In some styles of play, there is no such thing as a hidden detail that has to be found. In some other styles of play - CoC modules are a paradigm, but there are D&D examples also - there are such things.

How does it come to be that there is a hidden detail that has to be found?

 

[Maxperson]

I think there are many cases where this is true, but I've played enough to know that there are many cases where it is NOT true! I've had players tell me almost completely different interpretations of significant events more than once. Like they attended different game sessions or something. Anyway, I'm certainly not hostile to the idea that there's SOME degree, most often quite a lot, of consensus. Its just that you never really know! I can't easily test the GM's understanding of the situation, except by trying things.

Right, but that's the sort of thing I was describing earlier. It's pretty rare for a significant conflict to happen, but it does happen sometimes. It happened to me once last year(or maybe the year before). I was describing a long wall(I didn't give the exact length in feet) that one of the PCs climbed up on and was walking down. I also described some goblins in the middle of the courtyard. The player told me that he went to the end of the wall and got into a nook behind a piece of stone(it was a ruined wall). A bit later he said that he pulled out his short bow to shoot down at the goblins and I let him know that he was out of range. The player was like, "What? How?" We obviously had very different ideas of how long the wall was. I stopped the game and clarified, then I asked what he would have done knowing the length of the wall. We rolled and there wasn't the same kind of nook that he found at the end for him to shoot the goblins in the middle of the wall, so he opted to continue with hiding at the far end.

It strikes me as a rather narrativist way of putting it That is, I would say that things are only important which the players focus on and MAKE important.

I do believe I've been telling you that I play a blend of the styles. I play a traditional game with other style aspects in it.

Yeah, well, I think we all agree that certain kinds of bias are no good, certainly if pushed too far. OTOH I think DW's 'the GM is a fan of the PCs' is a really good solid concept which I have always followed in all games. I mean, you can still kill 'em, you just have to be cool about it

I don't go with fan of the PCs, but rather fan of the players. I want them to have a good time, so I try to come up with and do things that they will find to be fun. And yes, I do occasionally kill a PC.

 

[Maxperson]

In some styles of play, there is no such thing as a hidden detail that has to be found. In some other styles of play - CoC modules are a paradigm, but there are D&D examples also - there are such things.

Yes, I understand this.

How does it come to be that there is a hidden detail that has to be found?

There are a few ways. First, sometimes there is a strong door with a good lock that I know is in the dungeon/building/wherever, so I will sometimes place a key in a drawer. I don't think to myself, "This is an important detail", but rather, "This key will make it easier to get through that door if they find it." Second, sometimes I place the door and don't even think about a key. When the players have their PCs search the BBEG's office(or wherever), sometimes a player will ask me, "Hey, did we happen to see a key to that locked door we found?" At that point, realizing that I didn't consider a key and that such a key must exist, I will give them a d20 roll to see whether or not the key was present in the office. A successful roll will have me let them know that they did see a key in the drawer. An unsuccessful roll means that the key is elsewhere.

 

[Manbearcat]

The argument over agency is getting odd. The detractors of Story Now gaming have claimed that their players wouldn't want to have input into the fiction. The players want to inhabit their characters as if they are there. It's the GM's job to create and describe the world. Fair enough. Why then, are there arguments that Classical players have just as much, if not more agency than Story Now gamers? It seems pretty obvious that not having input over the actual fiction, other than character decisions, is less agency. And since it is not desirable for the players to be declaring actions which shape the world, what's the problem? Aren't Classical games aiming for high character agency and low player agency? If you are letting players have some control over the fiction than you are at least dabbling in Story Now, and so, I would assume, not be too opposed to Story Now advocates.

The argument that Story Now gamers actually have less agency is even stranger. It seems to come from the idea that players are being flung from one crisis to another, with no choice or room to breathe. I'm sure that if the players desired some time to explore a bazaar or share a "family" meal aboard their spaceship, it would happen. I'm sure Story Now GMs aren't anymore tyrannical than regular ones.

The other objection is the idea that multiple players having multiple goals is going to cause less agency for the players who don't get their own way. How is this any different from every other rpg out there? Players compromise and GMs assure no one player dominates the table.

Although, some of these posts are getting a little heated, I think we need to also remember that good debators ask challenging questions. It's not necessarily personal attacks, or "one true wayism."

Alright, so I haven't posted in almost 3 months. I'm pretty much in my death throes of posting thoughts on TTRPGs. But I'm going to flail out a response here before rigamortis fully sets in.

There are so many reasons why these conversations never bear out any fruit on ENWorld, but a big portion has to do with play priorities and the facts that:

a) Not all play priorities play nice with each other because...

b) Play priority x may either subordinate (in play) or be nearly mutually exclusive to play priority y...

c) Play priority x's machinery may force multiply its priorities to the exclusion of priority y.

d) When this happens, the expression of player agency inherent to play priority y is impacted.

This is where people get annoyed, because this is a large component of The Forge's concept of incoherency. And The Forge and ideas of incoherency of game agendas/priorities gets people pissed.

But it always becomes manifest in a thread like this and should be (but my guess is I can't do it) easily conveyed when you examine a game like Moldvay Basic vs a game like Dungeon World. At the veneer level, they look to be similar fantasy games. In play, they are most definitely not.

Moldvay Basic's primary play priority is about testing a player's skill at logistics/strategic planning, puzzle solving, and using effective teamwork (in both maximizing output in Exploration Turns, parlay, and combat) to overcome the game's machinery (a complex series of obstacles + the Exploration Turn > Wandering Monster Clock > Monster Reaction synthesis) to limit dire peril in order to pull treasure out of a dangerous dungeon.

Dungeon World's primary play priority is about an endless stream of danger and peril and finding out what what kind of world and rich characters comes out of such a fray. ALL of the game's machinery pushes towards that play priority. Yes, there is some resource management and logistics, but that component of the game is there to augment that primary play priority, not to reduce its impact (eg; dire peril and danger is coming no matter what...that is the point of play...so spend your Adventuring Gear "here" or "there", it won't reduce the game's overall danger, but it will change its present nature, shape the world, and enrich your characters and others as we find out what happens).

If you try to mash those two together?...

One of those two play priorities will invariably become subordinate to the other. They don't inherently play nice together and matters are made worse when the game's machinery supports one paradigm over the other. Imagining that they do is a big problem in these sorts of conversations.

Now some games do a better job of synthesizing those particular play priorities than others due to the cleverness of their machinery. This is one of the reasons why Blades in the Dark has become such a hit.

 

[pemerton]

Alright, so I haven't posted in almost 3 months.

Luckily for you, we've kept this thread alive for all that time!

Not all play priorities play nice with each other

OK, so you've teased this out in relation to DW and Moldvay Basic.

I think I am making a similar claim in relation not to two particular systems, but two reasonably broad but also recognisable play priorities: players exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction by way of action resolution - a whole range of games prioritise this, but 4e will do as well as any as a working example - and players learning what setting ideas and elements the GM has come up with, and enjoying the experience of learning them by way of second-person narration - I think that this is an important aspect of a lot of CoC play, a lot of post-DL D&D module play, and a fair bit of what (in this thread) has been described as the players, via their characters, "exploring" the gameworld and gathering information about it.

I think it's pretty hard for the same episode of RPGing to serve both those priorities.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Alright, so I haven't posted in almost 3 months. I'm pretty much in my death throes of posting thoughts on TTRPGs. But I'm going to flail out a response here before rigamortis fully sets in.

There are so many reasons why these conversations never bear out any fruit on ENWorld, but a big portion has to do with play priorities and the facts that:

a) Not all play priorities play nice with each other because...

b) Play priority x may either subordinate (in play) or be nearly mutually exclusive to play priority y...

c) Play priority x's machinery may force multiply its priorities to the exclusion of priority y.

d) When this happens, the expression of player agency inherent to play priority y is impacted.

This is where people get annoyed, because this is a large component of The Forge's concept of incoherency. And The Forge and ideas of incoherency of game agendas/priorities gets people pissed.

But it always becomes manifest in a thread like this and should be (but my guess is I can't do it) easily conveyed when you examine a game like Moldvay Basic vs a game like Dungeon World. At the veneer level, they look to be similar fantasy games. In play, they are most definitely not.

Moldvay Basic's primary play priority is about testing a player's skill at logistics/strategic planning, puzzle solving, and using effective teamwork (in both maximizing output in Exploration Turns, parlay, and combat) to overcome the game's machinery (a complex series of obstacles + the Exploration Turn > Wandering Monster Clock > Monster Reaction synthesis) to limit dire peril in order to pull treasure out of a dangerous dungeon.

Dungeon World's primary play priority is about an endless stream of danger and peril and finding out what what kind of world and rich characters comes out of such a fray. ALL of the game's machinery pushes towards that play priority. Yes, there is some resource management and logistics, but that component of the game is there to augment that primary play priority, not to reduce its impact (eg; dire peril and danger is coming no matter what...that is the point of play...so spend your Adventuring Gear "here" or "there", it won't reduce the game's overall danger, but it will change its present nature, shape the world, and enrich your characters and others as we find out what happens).

If you try to mash those two together?...

One of those two play priorities will invariably become subordinate to the other. They don't inherently play nice together and matters are made worse when the game's machinery supports one paradigm over the other. Imagining that they do is a big problem in these sorts of conversations.

Now some games do a better job of synthesizing those particular play priorities than others due to the cleverness of their machinery. This is one of the reasons why Blades in the Dark has become such a hit.

That explains why this discussion has gone nowhere.