What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ovinomancer]

I think Pemerton's reply to me is a categorical denial that he uses pre-authored material for framing.

Maybe he takes the position that any content generated in response to player input isn't pre-authored? Like if the player says "my character has a grudge against dragons" and the GM then goes and stats out Carlyxiarus, the white wyrm, and maps out a lair and creates some minions that could interact with the party and eventually lead to the dragon. I would certainly call that pre-authored GM material, but maybe Pemerton wouldn't.[/QUOTE [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] often uses unique definitions for things. In thus case, "pre-authored" really means "prepped prior to play AND kept secret from the players AND used to determine action resolution." Ou'd you made a note before play on sime dragon stats and then only introduced the dragon as part of framing or action resolution, but not using the dragon as secret unit to action resolution, then is not "pre-authired" to pemerton.

Essentially, he's talking about pre-authored action resolutions (I have a note that says the map is in the kitchen, so looking for it in the study will fail) not pre-authored bits of framing (I frame Hardby as being on the map right here, as according to the Greyhawk setting, a fact now openly known to players to include in their action declarations).

Why he's so bad at explaining this clearly and instead keeps using unique definitions of common terms, I don't know.

 

[BryonD]

Not had a lot of time to respond lately, and I'd like to get back to a few posts, but, for now:

I think another part of the continued disconnect is that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] isn't really adverse to pre-authored material so long as it's presented as framing and not as part of action resolution. Prepping an encounter map or a villain (his naga and the elf in the desert come to mind) are perfectly fine, so long as their introduction is open and such things are not used to negate action declarations. He's not ever been clear on this, though, so I might misunderstand him once again.

To your main point, I'm much better at running a game that engages player actions with at least a framework to rely on. A few notes about main points usually suffices. I can usually predict what my players will do (within reasonable boundaries) so I can aim my prep at making sure I have a backbone of possibilities to model my resolutions on. Quite often I go very far "off script" due to play, but I find I'm much better at doing so if I have a framework in place than if I'm just winging it altogether. Providing consequences that hang together and have coherent impacts are easier for me if I have put some thought into the general shape of things beforehand.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to espouse a gaming philosophy that is much in line with the concepts of improv acting: don't negate another's input, build on it. "Yes, and" is the touchstone. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s approach differs really only in the use of mechanics to adjudicate some actions, those that touch directly on the stated focuses of the characters, but, even then, the "Yes, and" holds some water as the action is always validated, it's always employed, with the results adding to that action rather than moving away from it.

And, much as with improv, this isn't something everyone likes or is good at. Many actors use improv as a technique to improve their craft, but then go on to primarily do scripted parts. This is because scripted parts do a better job of being coherent and impactful on average. Not to say improv can't do this, it certainly can, often in surprising ways, but scripts are usually better for this impact. It's a bit different in RPGs, as all RPGs have improv traits, but [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] advocates a style that skews much more heavily towards that end of the spectrum. I think the problem with most of the threads that this comes up in is that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] looks at everything from the lens of improv being better at getting to what he likes and that means that he has trouble looking at games with more scripting (prep, worldbuilding, secret backstory, whatever) and figuring out what people get from that. This is apparent in his responses, especially those that drift towards blanket statements that everyone can play his way and that players will come around to liking it if they try it. That's not so, just as not all actors like improv, or can even do it well. There's a reason improv theaters aren't the majority, and it's not the inherent superiority of improv.

I guess the wrap up is that players can be both actors in the game and the audience for the game. And how the story unfolds can appeal to different players according to where players fall in those camps. Some players love being the actor, being the focal point of the story and having everything engage them and nothing that constrains that engagement. Other players are more situated on the audience side -- yes they act, but they're mostly there to be entertained, to be part of an entertaining story, and they're not nearly as interested in acting on that story as having the story act on them (as audience members do). Neither is better or worse. Both can be fun. But it's important to realize the difference as it answers the OP question of what worldbuilding (prep, secret backstory, scripting, whatever) is for -- it's to engage a player type that is different from the type of player [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is.

I think there is another important distinction. And, consistent with what you have said, I don't make any claim of inherent superiority. It is all about what is fun to who.
But there is a lot that can be said about "NO" in the tabletop RPG context that differs from simply improv acting.

To me, and I'd be comfortable saying to many others I've gamed with, being a player is tied to being an alternate person within a setting and context and having the experience as that person. You may be a "god among men" or little nothing just trying to make ti day to day within the game. But whatever the case may be, the interaction within the world while constrained to being that character and nothing more is a lot of fun. With no definition hard-wired to what "fun" needs to be. It may be just the glory of the experience, or it may be the virtual empowerment of killing a slew of orcs. It can be as wide as an imagination.

But "yes and" undermines that. Again, someone else may find that "yes and" creates a great deal more dopamine in their brain. It isn't a value statement I'm making. But it objectively changes the context of how the player experiences the world if they have a "yes and" GM or a "depends on your character's capacity to make that change happen, so quite possibly NO" GM.
I have players in my games who are very much actors and not at all spectators. The running side joke is "how are you going to destroy all my prep this time?" And I love that. They absolutely take control. And yet they do that ONLY within the constraints of their characters.

"NO" is an important part of the joy of success.

I think the context of the conversation makes this sound harsh. I've discussed this specific idea with players. But ONLY subsequent to seeing it brought up on these boards in recent years. Previously, the idea of limitations was simply obvious and not a consideration. I'd even very much call myself a "yes and" GM in more typical circumstances. But it would be "yes and" within boundary condition which, to me, require no conversation.

 

[Jester David]

I completely disagree with this! The whole tenor and content of a pre-authored setting and adventures is different. First of all the framing is decidedly controlled by the author and isn't particularly adaptive to the wishes and needs of the players at the table (unless they helped author it, which I've actually done with a group twice, but even then much of the same issue arises). GM force is likely as there's a high investment in the material, etc.

In fact I would say that these are almost two diametrically opposed types of game.

Emphasis added.
I'm not just talking about setting and adventures, which are on the far side of the spectrum. There's very, very much a middle ground where you can take elements from them and add them to a homegame.
Such as a dungeon from an adventure, a town from a campaign setting, a location of note from either.
In those instances the source in that case is irrelevant.

Pemerton seems to be talking entiely about pre-authored vs improv authored. So he's not just talking published settings, but also ones created by the GM in advance. Which adds a whole other level, as something I create in my downtime before a game is probably pretty similar in tone to something I'm going to add at the table.

My point is that it doesn't matter to the players if the location they encounter was created 100% at that moment and entirely unplanned, or if it was created six months ago and kept on an inspirational index card in my gaming books, or if it was in a published adventure. Because a good GM can leave them wondering. Because a good GM can work it into the story seamlessly, taking this unrelated element and making it a functional part of their setting or their homebrew adventure.

Say my adventurers are travelling through the jungle. On their travels they encounter:

• The decapitated body of a giant dinosaur, killed by trophy hunters who plan on stuffing & mounting its head.
• An ancient stone druid circle with a petrified treant in the middle. A single small sapling is emerging from the dead plan's side.
• An ovoid floating island with two trees emerging from it, their stumps and roots giving it the appearance of a giant stone heart.
• An abandoned wagon with multiple crates stocked with food provisions, strips of leather, and two barrels of spoiled wine. There signs of battle around, including arrows in the wagon, but no bodies.

Does it matter which of those I created off the top of my head? Which I pulled from a WotC adventure? Which I pulled from an online forum? Which I pulled from a table of random encounters?

Does preparing the encounter or the location ahead of time fundamentally change it for my players?
I say no. Not as long as I can customise it for them and work it into the story. So long as the location fits the world and campaign, it's irrelevant if I did the work ahead of time when I was inspired or if I created it on the fly at the table.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think Pemerton's reply to me is a categorical denial that he uses pre-authored material for framing.

Maybe he takes the position that any content generated in response to player input isn't pre-authored? Like if the player says "my character has a grudge against dragons" and the GM then goes and stats out Carlyxiarus, the white wyrm, and maps out a lair and creates some minions that could interact with the party and eventually lead to the dragon. I would certainly call that pre-authored GM material, but maybe Pemerton wouldn't.

Seems to me this part gets to be semantics. I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is happy to use the Monster Manual to pick a monster. So, if he picks a mage tower from a module or setting book, is that really any different? He says "I didn't decide ahead of time this was going to be present in the setting" so it isn't 'pre-authored'. You are saying that someone wrote it up, so it IS pre-authored. I don't think there is a clear right or wrong answer to that, but lets just say there isn't an unequivocal one either.

So, nobody would say selecting an orc from the MM is 'using pre-authored content' BUT I think we would ALL say "running Isle of Dread is using pre-authored content", yet any GM could drop Isle of Dread into a campaign on a whim because they need someplace for the PCs to go with their ship (or whatever). The point being that degree does matter. Where is the dividing line, and do any of these activities constitute 'world building' either in the sense Pemerton meant it or in any other sense people might mean it. Again, degree is going to matter here. You could argue that even establishing the existence of orcs is world building, so there's differences in terms of what we're defining too.

Semantics is not really that easy...

 

[Lanefan]

This is true. There are a few things about that of course. Some games are more focused on a specific story arc or maybe the players have a desire to focus mostly in a certain direction, in which case they would at best spend a brief time on a side-quest. Now, it might still be worth several encounters. It COULD be a red herring and yes it might not be dull to play through. Again, depends on exactly how focused the players are. Some games are also just not mechanically well-suited for undirected play, others are.

All true.

Right, and it might well be important enough to play through in detail in a game too, or it might be left as a single quick prefatory SC. I doubt it would be an interlude, although I guess you could play a game like that as long as the players are comfortable with almost no mechanics, since interludes in my game are diceless.

Please define "interlude" as you're using it here, as you seem to have a specific game-related meaning behind the term.

But this is the point, time is different in a movie and an RPG.

Yes; a movie has a limited time frame while an RPG can be endless.

No, but endless weeks of shopping and chit chat aren't really my main style. I think if you look at the techniques of the really talented GMs you'll see that they all spend relatively little time on this kind of thing, and mostly get at the action of the game, the meat of it. Now, depending on the game, that might be combat, spying, or something completely different.

If you mean the podcasts, I don't look at those as being at all representative of how the game is really played or DMed; as the goal of a podcast (to entertain the online non-participating audience) is greatly different from the goal of an average home game (to entertain the other people at the table). And because of this a podcast game is likely going to maintain an artificially high level of pacing and action and drama while skipping over the mundane-but-realistic bookkeeping and logistics and downtime.

And a talented home-game DM would allow time for shopping and downtime activities and bookkeeping.

Well, I wouldn't generalize TOO much on the length of an SC. You can do short ones, or long ones, but I think a complexity five 4e SC is likely to take a while. It requires a setup, at least a dozen checks, each with a transition of the narrative significant enough to warrant using a different skill (at least potentially), an equal number of decision points, etc. Consider a 5x5 by 5 round combat (the nominal 4e combat) requires something like an hour and will have probably about 30 attack rolls and maybe 5 saves. So a complex SC should take 30-45 minutes, though some might be shorter and a few longer.

I would think an adventure spans at least a level usually, and in 4e that's probably around 7 or so encounters, maybe 2 sessions. If it was all SCs it would probably be at least 4 to 6 hours of encounter play. None of this counts outright exploration. HoML considers exploration either part of an SC or possible an interlude.

Yeah, don't get me started on 4e's too-rapid advancement pace. Were I ever to run anything resembling 4e (or 3e or 5e, for that matter) the very first thing I'd do to the rules would be slow down the level advancement by a huge amount.

But in the context of RAW 4e I can see what you're saying. In my own context 7 or so encounters may or may not take place before you even get to the adventure itself.

I find that I'd rather get the thing moving. I don't want to hurriedly end it, but I don't need a given campaign to run for many years or something. If it did then it would probably consist of a number of largely disconnected story arcs, like mini-campaigns. I can come up with new material pretty easily, I don't feel like I need to milk what I have. In fact I've got YEARS, maybe DECADES worth of ideas and locations stored up in my notes, my brain, etc. I could fire off a new campaign a week if I had the time and energy.

Again quite the opposite from how I look at it.

In my case I put quite a bit of work into designing the setting-world-cultures-etc., and particularly the history; and though I could do it again if I had to (and most likely will have to, sometime down the road when my current game runs out of steam) this is all the kind of work I really only ever want to do once.

A good solid game-world history can be mined for story ideas until death do us part. At best guess, with what I've got in mind right now - along with some maybe-unrelated things I half-expect my players are going to introduce - my current game is good for maybe 3-5 more years provided people still want to play it; and both I and the players have those 3-5 years to come up with new or continuing story ideas that'll keep it running longer. And beyond that I've an idea for at least one hard AP that would recycle the same setting and game-world, and that'd be probably good for another couple of years of play.

Lan-"which means that with any luck I won't have to design another game world until the mid-late 2020's"-efan

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there is another important distinction. And, consistent with what you have said, I don't make any claim of inherent superiority. It is all about what is fun to who.
But there is a lot that can be said about "NO" in the tabletop RPG context that differs from simply improv acting.

...

"NO" is an important part of the joy of success.

I think the context of the conversation makes this sound harsh. I've discussed this specific idea with players. But ONLY subsequent to seeing it brought up on these boards in recent years. Previously, the idea of limitations was simply obvious and not a consideration. I'd even very much call myself a "yes and" GM in more typical circumstances. But it would be "yes and" within boundary condition which, to me, require no conversation.

I think fictional positioning is basically the same sort of limiter in my process of running a game. You can't just do any old arbitrary thing as a player because your PC needs the fictional positioning to make that happen. Now, you may be able to, within limits, establish parts of the narrative yourself and then use that as a way to get your character positioned (IE you might use a plot coupon to find some money and pay for a potion with the money, etc). Of course the GM might then wonder where that money came from and who's missing it...

Say 'yes' is A technique, but it isn't the last word in story-driven play. Its just a good starting point, and you're perfectly OK to say "yes, but..." or "yes, and..." etc. (like the found money above). Sometimes you say "make a check". It is also possible for different participants to say "wait, that violates my sense of genre appropriateness, why do you want to tell it that way?" And obviously if you get a player who constantly has that issue and doesn't like to collaborate at all then they might not be a good match for the table.

I've also had players who just don't put themselves forward much and play in a more 'classic' fashion in games where they could and should do something. It can be worked around, at least to some extent. DW is good because you simply HAVE to eventually make a move, or your not playing at all for example.

 

[Emerikol]

Say what you want but I’ve never met a DM who could pull it off for long at all doing it on the fly. Not something a huge as a full blown encounter. Now I have seen DMs using existing content with creative flourishes.

 

[BryonD]

I think fictional positioning is basically the same sort of limiter in my process of running a game. You can't just do any old arbitrary thing as a player because your PC needs the fictional positioning to make that happen. Now, you may be able to, within limits, establish parts of the narrative yourself and then use that as a way to get your character positioned (IE you might use a plot coupon to find some money and pay for a potion with the money, etc). Of course the GM might then wonder where that money came from and who's missing it...

Say 'yes' is A technique, but it isn't the last word in story-driven play. Its just a good starting point, and you're perfectly OK to say "yes, but..." or "yes, and..." etc. (like the found money above). Sometimes you say "make a check". It is also possible for different participants to say "wait, that violates my sense of genre appropriateness, why do you want to tell it that way?" And obviously if you get a player who constantly has that issue and doesn't like to collaborate at all then they might not be a good match for the table.

I've also had players who just don't put themselves forward much and play in a more 'classic' fashion in games where they could and should do something. It can be worked around, at least to some extent. DW is good because you simply HAVE to eventually make a move, or your not playing at all for example.

Certainly. I think under normal circumstances my reply to you would be "well, duh!"
But in context my reply still describes a meaningful distinction.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Say what you want but I’ve never met a DM who could pull it off for long at all doing it on the fly. Not something a huge as a full blown encounter. Now I have seen DMs using existing content with creative flourishes.

System matters. Its very hard to do this in D&D, for instance, but baked in to DW and BW. Its doable to greater or lesser extents in other systems.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Say what you want but I’ve never met a DM who could pull it off for long at all doing it on the fly. Not something a huge as a full blown encounter. Now I have seen DMs using existing content with creative flourishes.

I think in the timeframe 2011-2013 I was running 2 4e campaigns and I prepared NOTHING. I mean, I was running them in my setting, so there's some established stuff, but I just winged it entirely 4e is especially good for that, particularly with encounter design. I think both of those campaigns were some of the best ones I've done. I ended up moving and the group was hankering to play the new Star Wars game, so we broke them off, but they both ran well up to the early parts of paragon, and I haven't any reason to believe they'd have broken down after that.

Now, maybe I'm weird, but if I just close my eyes for a second, all sorts of ideas will come forth and I just pick one. Sometimes it seems wildly improbable, but it works. If things need to move forward and I am feeling a lack of character material to engage, then I put out some bait, otherwise I'm really just pushing back what the players throw at me and adding twists to it as they pass checks or not.

I didn't always play this way. In the 90's I created vast timelines and whatnot. It was WAY too much work and I didn't find the return on investment or quality of the game warranted it. I get better games for less work now Again, possibly unique to me and maybe certain other people that like to do it that way.