What is *worldbuilding* for?

[BryonD]

The fiction may be awesome or not - that seems mostly a matter of taste. If players enjoy the GM presenting them with the products of his/her imagination, no doubt that's a reason for the GM to create and present such products.

My claim is simly about agency. In that situation, the players do not seem to have a great deal of agency over the shared fiction. This was a point that was made upthread and treated as controversial. But now it seems that it is a point that attracts widespread agreement.

I think the disconnect is that you take a reasonable position, differing player agency in differing systems and/or group dynamics, and then you make an flawed leap to how that is important to the merits of the game. People react to the second part as controversial and you misdirect that.

Where do the constraints come from, then. Eg how is it determined where the map is located?

And, this is a fair example. You throw this question out as a dropped mike moment, or maybe a dropped gauntlet. And yet, the question is truly completely irrelevant.
If the joy that players in your game get comes from finding mundane maps hidden in mundane places then I don't think I want to play in your game.

Yes, if there is a map hidden at spot X, then the players have ZERO agency to change that. There is no relevance to this point with regard to the players ability to be proactive creators of the fiction at large. Maybe they find the map by saying the right thing, exactly as you have complained. But maybe the story continues with the consequences of them not finding the map. Or, much more likely, the players come up with creative things their character can do to work out a solution. The challenge becomes a straw man because it is so arbitrary and lacking in context. so all I can really say is

- This crap never happens in my game. If the constraints on how the map is located is that important to you then you are simply not grasping some idea. Yeah, it is either purely in my brain or on a piece of paper. But it doesn't even merit consideration.

It comes back to good GMs making good, interesting, and fun canvases for the players to interact with.

To sum up, in this very post you make reference to "the GM presenting them with the products of his/her imagination" and then you segue into agency. That is a mistake. In a good game, the players can be completely constrained by the character's capacity and yet have a great deal of agency because of the very nature of those character's capacity. They may not be able to define the location of the map itself, btu the products of my imagination are like a good plan on its first meeting with the enemy. The resulting experience for all is far greater than my imagination. Your responses keep rejecting and/or failing to observe this critically important distinction.

 

[Jester David]

And as a player, as I've said, I want to play a game where my character, and my character's choices, matter. [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] thinks that I can't tell whether or not this is happening in a game; I know from esxperience that he is wrong. I've been part of GM sackings, and have quit games, because GMs don't want to run that sort of game.

Goddammit, no, that's not what I said. That's not even close to what I said. You can't even see what I said from here.

What I was talking about had nothing to do with player choice. Zero. Zilch. It was entirely unrelated and so much so that I didn't even mention player choice in the same paragraph.

The discussion was on pre-authored content and worldbuilding, not player agency and rails vs sandbox. The two are entirely different conversations, as you can have a giant pre-authored sandbox where the players have freedom to go wherever just as you can have an improvised railroad where the GM creates the story in the moment but gives little freedom.

I talked about not being to tell if the GM is using a pre-prepared location versus an improvised one. And how you cannot tell a pre-planned location from a spontaneously generated one. That you can worldbuild and create settings & locations & NPCs & quest hooks ahead of time. And so long as they are added to the adventure as the result of players actions, it does not matter when they were created.

 

[BryonD]

Goddammit, no, that's not what I said. That's not even close to what I said. You can't even see what I said from here.

What I was talking about had nothing to do with player choice. Zero. Zilch. It was entirely unrelated and so much so that I didn't even mention player choice in the same paragraph.

The discussion was on pre-authored content and worldbuilding, not player agency and rails vs sandbox. The two are entirely different conversations, as you can have a giant pre-authored sandbox where the players have freedom to go wherever just as you can have an improvised railroad where the GM creates the story in the moment but gives little freedom.

I talked about not being to tell if the GM is using a pre-prepared location versus an improvised one. And how you cannot tell a pre-planned location from a spontaneously generated one. That you can worldbuild and create settings & locations & NPCs & quest hooks ahead of time. And so long as they are added to the adventure as the result of players actions, it does not matter when they were created.

He said he knows from experience. And there is the answer. It is all about preconceived notions and then selecting the evidence backwards to establish the presumed conclusion.

Heaven forbid that someone else have both the narrative "in character" joy AND also have a great game. To quote somebody: "Inconceivable!"

 

[Jester David]

You did a lot of planning. You just did it ahead of time. I’m not a snob but I do know what I like and if it’s my free time at stake then I care to have what I like.

There's a couple different levels of free time.
There's my free time between the game sessions. But the game is also free time. I'm not at work. I'm playing with my friends. I want to maximise the fun at the game table, so that free time was well spent.

But at the game table, it's also not my free time. It's my friends' free time.
Why would I want to waste their precious free time being unprepared to run a game? Why would I gamble my friends' free time that I'll be able to improvise an adventure that's better than one I could plan ahead of time?

 

[Sunseeker]

I think this clearly goes to different approaches to resolution and to (subsequent) framing.

Whether the attempt is resolved in one roll, or multiple, I see as a function of system. 4e, for instance, would normally have this be a skill challenge. In BW it might be one roll, or multiple, depending on how big a deal the group wants to make it.

What the consequences are I see as primarily a function of player intent. Which also feeds back into resolution - the resolution has to be consonant with the intent (eg if the players want the assassination not to provoke unrest, they have to factor the appropriate efforts into their approach to resolution - eg a Streetwise element to spread appropriately calming rumours). This might speak in favour of a more complex approach to resolution - eg a skill challenge, with the Streetwise attempt as one part of that.

The fact that it's a big deal doesn't, to me, seem to create a reason in and of itself for the GM to exercise more control over the outcome.

A few things:
First, players are always going to want to minimize the biggest risks with the smallest amount of effort. This isn't an unreasonable position to take, but a DM cannot in good faith to the game, adjudicate things with the players intentions in mind. The only thing that matters are the players actions. They may want to minimize internal strife, but we're talking about killing a King here. That's a BFD and the players DO NOT get to say it isn't, or pass out some poorly xeroed socialist newsletters and assume everything will be hunky-dory.

Second: The GM isn't exercising more control over the outcome. He's just aware of more of the "fictional positioning" than the players are. He has to exercise more control for the simple reason that he's aware of potential outcomes the players are not. Not to mention, that's kinda his job. The players declare their actions. The GM adjudicates them.

Finally: if you combine your two arguments then you have essentially removed the GM from the game, with the players both declaring their actions and subsequently determining the outcome in line with their intent. I mean that's awesome for some kind of game, and maybe collaborative story-teller games do this, but GM-less games are by far the minority.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, I know why it is useful to have ideas or elements for framing prepared in advance (can help with tropes, can help with mechanics, can help with provoking choices).

I’ll take this as you acknowledging that preparation can be useful.

But why is it useful to have outcomes of action declarations prepared in advance? Helps with what - directing the story? That's seems to be one answer provided by some posters in this thread.

As for this, I was not commenting about this.

But since you’ve asked for my take on it, I would say that it serves to limit the players choices to what is plausible for the game. This is the same function as genre or setting limitations, or even as scene framing. Again, you may not like or prefer this approach, but it doesn’t change why it’s useful.

Saying that the player can’t find a map where it’s been decided that there is no map is no different than saying that the player in a D&D game can’t introduce a helicopter to the story.

As much as an RPG is a story, it’s also still a game. And in any game, players are limited in what they can try to do.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK, we're all good up to here. But then you add... ...and right there I start thinking you've got the challenge bit wrong.

The challenge, from the PCs' perspective, isn't to poison the king. That's eventually to be the assassin's challenge, in which the PCs (and by extension the players) are not involved at all. The PCs' challenge is to convince someone else to try to poison the king, success in which provides them a hired field operative committed to that mission.

Yes, these could happen during the recruiting/hiring process - on a failure a prospective operative turns the PCs in, for example. But it's less likely to happen at this stage than during the actual assassination attempt.
But now you're jumping ahead to the assassination attempt itself, which is a different challenge and out of the players/PCs' hands.

A 12-0 success run means they've hired the best and most loyal operative they could ever hope to find. Still doesn't at all speak to whether said operative is going to be able to pull it off or not, though it might influence the odds somewhat.

I guess in short I see the players dealing with what's in their PCs' range to be involved with (in this case the hiring and equipping of an assassin) and then not being involved in what their PCs are not involved in (here, the actual infiltration and assassination attempt).

I don't do this very often*, but in a case like this I think I'd have to - there's just too many variables. It'd end up working more like a flowchart; in that both successes and failures could be mitigated or overcome by other factors arising then or later. There's no way I could beat this down to just one die roll, even if I wanted to, without really shortchanging the game.

* - most common occurrence is during 3-way combats where the PCs are fighting two opposing groups who are also fighting each other - if someone from foe group A is fighting someone from foe group B I'll play out their initiatives, swings etc. right along with the rest of the combat, mostly so I know what will be left of either or both should one or more PCs end up fighting them later.

True, only here they've conceded the ability to do very much of anything other than wait for developments; developments which they neither get to author nor influence.

Lanefan

What 'variables' are there here? There is no challenge which does not involve the PCs! This is bedrock fundamental in my method of play, and it is reflected in the mechanics of HoML, which literally has no mechanical system to handle things outside of the scope of the characters. Any such goings-on are either unrelated to the PCs and their concerns, in which case they are merely setting detail, color essentially; or they are things which DO bear upon the conflicts that the PCs are engaged in, in which case the players play them out. Since no PC is acting directly in a 'scene' between the Assassin and the King, there are no checks to be made at that point in the narrative.

It is sufficient that the players have achieved execution of the mission to a sufficiently high level of success, the rest is already encompassed within that. When the characters execute their last actions in the process, the last check is cast and success (or failure) is achieved. The end results will then be narrated, probably by the GM. Perhaps the players will be treated to a dramatic vignette, or maybe they'll just get a message later on or a pounding at their door telling them the King's Men have arrived to bring them in.

The DM tossing extra dice at the end of a challenge and giving the players no more input into it is IMHO pointless. The wager has been made, fate has already decreed the outcome based on the skill, luck, and willingness to wager the necessary stakes (or not). In my conception of D&D it isn't a process sim. Dice are not used to simulate some sort of 'world', they are used as they would be in any gamble of skill and chance, to introduce uncertainty and transform the exercise into one where the outcomes are not forgone conclusions, but have an element of tension.

Now, perhaps a better story would include some way for the PCs to actually engage in the assassination itself? Yeah, maybe! Perhaps if they can scry and help the assassin, or if they actually do it themselves. Well, then that would be a different thing. Obviously the challenge would then extend beyond preparation, or it could be reframed into several challenges, etc. Again, this is all a matter of how central the element is to the story, is it climactic or is it merely one more link in a chain of plot elements leading to some greater climax? I tend to structure things so that the pacing slows in the highest stakes and most dramatic aspects of the adventure or story arc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, a really up-there MU could simply Wish the king dead; but that's hardly the point here.

OK, you say this in disagreement with me, but then...

...go on to say exactly the same thing I did only using different words: that they can use their abilities and observations and knowledge to give themselves an educated guess. Even the ease or difficulty encountered in finding and-or hiring a killer may add useful knowledge.

But I think you were saying they CANNOT really know, that there are too many unknown factors, or at least that unknowability is an option. I don't believe that is an option. I might make the players resolve the odds by actions of their PCs as a concomitant of the wager (and I guess that opens up the possibility they could deliberately choose a 'blind wager' if they really want to).

I'll change that a bit, to read: an accurate assessment of the chances of success are a nice-to-have part of the wager, but true accuracy isn't always possible; and sometimes it really does come down to a gamble against unknown or very poorly-known odds.

Here we will simply have to fundamentally disagree. I don't think it is the GM's purview alone to know this (and the GM will, necessarily decide it in this case). That's the GM deciding what wagers are worth taking and depriving the players of agency. What meaning do decisions have when you have no way of understanding the consequences? In the real world that might be how it is, but the real world isn't a game and lacks drama or narrative (except where we impose such after the fact).

This is where our agendas part ways, apparently. I'm not going to dig into my notions of whether the concept of 'world simulation' is even valid in terms of its feasibility in RPGs, but I do propose that it isn't part of my agenda at all. I think there's a certain core 'base and ground' of essential cause-effect relationships that needs to mostly hold true in order to play, like gravity works pretty much like in the real world, etc. However I'm not interested in 'simulation' per se.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Maybe, but BIG Action Declarations like "I hire an assassin to kill the King." need to be followed with subsequent specificity from the players. The DM can be much like the genie with the action declaration being a badly worded wish. If you don't clearly state your goals, how can the DM adjudicate the results? Things like overthrowing a King (through death or other means) requires a series of action declarations, no matter if we address them via role-play or roll-play. Yes, statistically the more rolls you make the more likely you are to fail (that's statistics for you).

But BIG Action Declarations should be more prone to failure.
Players may not be aware of fictional positioning of the King distrusting them (I mean, they wanna kill this guy for a reason that we're assuming isn't "the players are jerks", and if they are well...I suspect the King knows this), sending spies to watch them, intercept their moves.
Perhaps the King has no interest in the party (which is often another reason the party wants to kill someone in power), and just happens to catch them looking to buy an assassin in the kingdom's routine checks on the Thieves Guild.
Perhaps another noble is paying the Assassins League good money to keep the disliked King alive (maybe the King himself is doing this) and that funding is more valuable to the Assassins League than the coin the players are throwing out.
Perhaps a rival kingdom is seeking to overthrow the King as well, and some ne'er-do-well PCs are just the right guys at the right time.

Declaring an action for something simple and immediate is easy, and similarly easy to adjudicate. (I drink the beer!....okay, you drink the beer, what's your Con? 16? *Auto-pass* Okay, it's tasty and you don't feel a buzz.)
The larger the action declaration, the more likely players are to experience side effects. In this example, the DM declaring that the death of the King has thrown the society into chaos should be keeping in line with what the players should have been able to learn about the Kingdom. It is not terribly difficult for an observant PC to pick up signs of internal strain in a land and perhaps after a chance encounter with the King, learn he's holding the country together with both hands.

For BIG Action Declarations, I like to follow this simple guide:
The are Known Knowns: These are the things the party knows. They don't require checks and finding this information is relatively easy. This information tends to remain consistent and if it changes, then the that new knowledge is likely to be a "known known" as well.
-In this situation, the "known known" should be the fact that the country is under heavy strain and the King is all that is keeping the land together.

There are Known Unknowns: These are things the party can find out, but can be subject to rapid change. This also includes information the party can reasonably intuit exists somewhere but lack specifics. (There is a Princess...therefore there must be a Queen. There is an Army, therefore there must be a General. There are 5 Noble Houses, two of which the King likes, two of which the King does not like, and one Switzerland.)
-The example scenario lacks these, but any of these could be applicable, and are worth serious consideration when declaring "I hire an assassin to kill the King!". Such as "Who is next in line to assume the throne?" We know someone will, but we don't know who, or how, or how much competition there is.

Finally, there are Unknown Unknowns: These are the sort of "secret fictional story positioning" ya'll keep coming back to. Players can't reasonably know everything that's going on in the Kingdom. Such as an enemy nation also seeking to assassinate the King. Or that the King as a secret heir born to a Tiefling woman who lives in the slums. Or that the bartender they've been so fond of yapping in front of is a Royal Spy.

Utilizing these three basic elements, it's fairly easy for a player or a DM to determine the potential side-effects of a BIG Action Declaration. Many players get in the habit of expecting success to come without strings. But you cannot truly make BIG Action Declarations and hold that expectation. I would find it incredibly unbelievable were a player to declare they wish to assassinate the King, have the DM roll a single d20, happen to roll a success, even a crit! And declare that the King is dead with no ill consequences to the country, or no caveats to the success of that assassination.

The problem is of course, getting players to "think of the big picture". Few do. Which is why we end up with games with BIG Action Declarations that function like small action declarations, with no or inconsequential side effects in comparison to the actual act the players just took.

Is any of this really a big issue? Is it really related to what sort of model of game you choose to accept? I mean, I wouldn't imagine that, in a game I ran, that the players would have doped out all of exactly what the CONSEQUENCES of regicide would be. OTOH I would imagine they would have considered the possibilities, weighed their options, and chosen (hopefully based mostly on RP considerations mixed with their agenda etc.) We didn't delve into the motivations of the characters, or the players for that matter, in my example.

So, yeah, the consequences of killing the king are probably complex, and perhaps so variable that in a realistic sense you wouldn't know what they would be. In a dramatic story they might well be more definite, but that's not a given. I'd say that the wager the players are making, character interests put up against steering the narrative, means that the players get SOME say in what happens next. That doesn't mean that the GM (or the players themselves for that matter) can't produce a narrative where the consequences are out of the PC's hands, or different from what they have expressed in-game as their desires. Remember, the goals of the characters and the players need not coincide. Usually players are advocates for their characters, but that doesn't mean they can't wish complications and setbacks on them. Certainly the GM is free to introduce 'unpleasant facts' as Dungeon World puts it. This is a part of moving to the action. Once the assassination has happened, then the GM is going to once again 'move to the action', so perhaps some of the noble houses ally with an outside power against them, they find themselves taking to the battlefield outnumbered. Will they achieve victory or go down in defeat? Will the Princess rule or the Bastard? Come back next week to play it out!

 

[Sunseeker]

Is any of this really a big issue? Is it really related to what sort of model of game you choose to accept? I mean, I wouldn't imagine that, in a game I ran, that the players would have doped out all of exactly what the CONSEQUENCES of regicide would be. OTOH I would imagine they would have considered the possibilities, weighed their options, and chosen (hopefully based mostly on RP considerations mixed with their agenda etc.) We didn't delve into the motivations of the characters, or the players for that matter, in my example.

So, yeah, the consequences of killing the king are probably complex, and perhaps so variable that in a realistic sense you wouldn't know what they would be. In a dramatic story they might well be more definite, but that's not a given. I'd say that the wager the players are making, character interests put up against steering the narrative, means that the players get SOME say in what happens next. That doesn't mean that the GM (or the players themselves for that matter) can't produce a narrative where the consequences are out of the PC's hands, or different from what they have expressed in-game as their desires. Remember, the goals of the characters and the players need not coincide. Usually players are advocates for their characters, but that doesn't mean they can't wish complications and setbacks on them. Certainly the GM is free to introduce 'unpleasant facts' as Dungeon World puts it. This is a part of moving to the action. Once the assassination has happened, then the GM is going to once again 'move to the action', so perhaps some of the noble houses ally with an outside power against them, they find themselves taking to the battlefield outnumbered. Will they achieve victory or go down in defeat? Will the Princess rule or the Bastard? Come back next week to play it out!

A big issue? No, not really. But it seemed as though [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was suggesting that the DM should attempt to make results work out to align with the players intentions (as opposed to their characters actions I guess?) and that to favor the "secret fictional positioning" was somehow taking control away from the players? Which seemed t contravene the position he wrote earlier regarding secret fictional positioning...though I could be misreading him.

But its not a big deal I think, but I feel pemerton's suggestion devalues the impact of such a declaration, which in turn devalues the fictional positioning of the game, and thus the game itsself.