What is *worldbuilding* for?

[chaochou]

There is a practical, gameplay-related reason to put the GM in charge of actually deciding how particular elements are introduced into the shared fiction (as framing, as consequences, etc), namely, the Czege Principle:

The “Czege principle” is a proposition by Paul Czege that it’s not exciting to play a roleplaying game if the rules require one player to both introduce and resolve a conflict. It’s not a theorem but rather an observation; where and how and why it holds true is an ongoing question of some particular interest.​

There are posters in this thread - eg @chaochou, @AbdulAlhazred, @Manbearcat - who give less credence to this than I do.

From my point of view, it's not that I don't give credence to it. Rather, I see it as a fairly banal statement that sets a boundary which in reality nothing ever actually reaches.

'Play' which breaches the Czege principle looks like this:
Player 1: I need cash, so I steal a load of cash from the dragon, but now the dragon is mad at me so I kill it.

No mechanical resolution, no external input. Just player-side resolution of player-side problems. In other words, it's just daydreaming.

D&D play often looks like this:
GM: You need cash. It's rumoured there's dragon sitting on a big pile of treasure in the caves.

Here The GM presupposes the character goal (player agency = dead) as well as the method of resolving it (player agency = buried). We assume that game mechanics will resolve the action, although often they are extremely weak to the point of acting as a limit on players but not on the GM (player agency = laughable).

A player-driven game will more likely look like this:
Player: I need cash, and there's dragon sitting on a big pile of treasure in the caves.

Here the player defines their goal and solution, but it doesn't breach the Czege principle, as nothing is resolved. We assume a series of more detailed action propositions will be made, resolved though the game mechanics, with robust controls on the GMs power to counteract the dice.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Which is itself an argument pivoting on an absolute.

Doesn't seem so clever now, does it?

By definition an argument is disputable, where as my statement is a fact and therefore not an argument.

Plenty clever, unfortunately not all who try to be, are.

Be well
KB

 

[pemerton]

There is a practical, gameplay-related reason to put the GM in charge of actually deciding how particular elements are introduced into the shared fiction (as framing, as consequences, etc), namely, the Czege Principle

'Play' which breaches the Czege principle looks like this:
Player 1: I need cash, so I steal a load of cash from the dragon, but now the dragon is mad at me so I kill it.

No mechanical resolution, no external input. Just player-side resolution of player-side problems. In other words, it's just daydreaming.

D&D play often looks like this:
GM: You need cash. It's rumoured there's dragon sitting on a big pile of treasure in the caves.

Here The GM presupposes the character goal (player agency = dead) as well as the method of resolving it (player agency = buried). We assume that game mechanics will resolve the action, although often they are extremely weak to the point of acting as a limit on players but not on the GM (player agency = laughable).

A player-driven game will more likely look like this:
Player: I need cash, and there's dragon sitting on a big pile of treasure in the caves.

Here the player defines their goal and solution, but it doesn't breach the Czege principle, as nothing is resolved. We assume a series of more detailed action propositions will be made, resolved though the game mechanics, with robust controls on the GMs power to counteract the dice.

I think your example of the player-driven dragon can be made consistent with what I said: as those more detailed action declarations are made, it will be the GM who oversees the framing and the introduction of consequences for failure.

That said, I still think I'm more conservative than you - probably quite a bit! - in terms of where I tend to treat the transition from player to GM content-introduction.

On the other hand, I can think of (perhaps fairly petty cases) where I probably contradict my own self-description. One is the Jabal of the Cabal episode already discussed upthread:

Player: I need to make contact with the cabal, and Jabal is a leader of it, so I reach out to him.​

This fed straight into a Circles check, which failed - so no GM content introduction until consequences of failure were needed (namely, Jabal sends a thug to run the PCs out of town).

A different sort of example, which I'm not quite sure how to classify: the invoker/wizard PC in my main 4e game has a feat that gives him a +2 bonus to skill checks made for rituals. I think that, as written, this is intended to affect only rituals in the literal mecahanical sense. But my player applies the bonus to other checks that he deems to be the performing of magical rituals (eg some, but not all, Arcana checks in a skill challenge). I let the player decide and police all that himself: he's the one playing the MU character, and so if he's got a view as to what is or isn't a ritual I'm not interested in second-guessing that.

Also, re your D&D example: that's especially why I hate fetch quests, MacGuffin hunting, and the suggestion that it makes for good play to make the players hunt down the (GM-authored in nature, location etc) ingredients for making magic items, lifting curses, etc. And the whole notion of "side quests" I think is inimical to player-driven RPGing.

 

[chaochou]

By definition an argument is disputable, where as my statement is a fact and therefore not an argument.

Not a statement of fact. An assertion. Although your claim to the facts perfectly illustrates your self-righteousness.

 

[Imaro]

Do you think its a good idea to put an unbeatable monster into a combat with a PC? I doubt it (granted that there can be some particular cases where this may be acceptable, but as a general concept its frowned upon by all), right?

So isn't that an indication that there's an agency problem associated with creating no-win situations where a character will presumably die? I would say they DO take away player agency (again accepting some cases where this may actually be a price that a player accepted as part of stakes). In classic D&D a player would of course not be upset by the appearance of an unbeatable monster if they had deliberately put themselves in a situation where this was known/likely to come up. For example if a level 1 PC in OD&D insists on trekking into the mountains and gets eaten by a 10HD dragon that would provoke nothing but shrugs, but if that dragon appeared on level 1 of the dungeon and simply ate the character without any possible recourse, then it would be considered not 'kosher'. The player had no chance to exercise skill in saving the character, thus the cost extracted was against conventions of play.

So clearly the overwhelming majority of D&Ders would IMHO think that an unkillable monster violated player agency, though they might arrive at that conclusion by different routes.

You're assuming I put them in this situation... why, if they have agency? In other words if they have true agency am I not removing it if I only ever allow them to encounter level appropriate envounters... irregardless of the actions and intentions they have?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, here's a summary of the "standard narraivistic model":

One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . . [O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory . . . the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character . . .​

In contrast to the GM, the player's role "is simple advocacy", that is, "they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background." When presented with a situation, "[t]he player is ready . . . as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character."

The example under discussion earlier in this post is a bit more complex than that, because the pressure on Xialath's player is coming not just from the GM component of the framing (Vecna's attack on Rel Astra) but another player's contribution via that player's PC (Xialath can have a magistracy if he goes along with the attack). I think this sort of thing is not that uncommon in RPGing.

But in any event, the player built a character with certain dramatic needs. Now those are being engaged. Where is the limit on agency?

I don’t know....my comment was not made in reference to that specific example. Instead, it’s about the possibility of framing limiting agency.

Would you say that it’s possible?

It seems to me that it is. The hope is that the GM frames scenes “responsibly”.

In this sense, I think it’s similar to GM backstory. It can reduce player agency, but it also may not. It depends on how the GM chooses to use it. I think that certain game mechanics or rules systems may skew things one way or the other, so that is likely a big factor, too.

I think the essay you linked to also supports what I’m saying.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don’t know....my comment was not made in reference to that specific example. Instead, it’s about the possibility of framing limiting agency.

Would you say that it’s possible?

I don't see how anyone rationally could say otherwise.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps heretically, I regard Kant as the most overrated of the great philosophers. (Oops - did I post that out loud?)

Of the 18th century philosophers I'm a great admirer of Hume. And, as might have come through in my posts about fiction etc, I'm a great admirer of the 19th/20th century analytic philosophers, whose starting point was undoing all the damage done by Kant! (Especially in his theories of knowledge and mathematics - I hesitate to say his theory of semantics, because part of the problem was that he didn't have one.)

Ah, spoken like a true philosopher, no hair may remain unsplit! Its not that I don't actually share some of your disdain for Kant, I think he's overrated perhaps (and Hume is certainly an interesting figure in his own right, but if you are at that level you have many choices, Descartes, HEGEL!!!! etc.

What distinguishes Kant is that he overturned the whole classically inspired system of philosophical thought. There is before Kant, and after Kant. Not to espouse a 'great man' theory of history, particularly of a field of thought, but you can profitably divide philosophy into 'Before Thales', 'Before Socrates', 'Before Kant', and 'After Kant'. You may even consider him to be a mediocre thinker in many respects, but his writing does signal a wholesale change in the approach and content of a subject who's main topics and approach had largely been defined by a single small group of individuals more than 2000 years earlier.

So, this is fun material for world building, right!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, I think it is fair to say that each style of play includes and excludes some sorts of games. In a game run by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] its not likely that the PCs will spend a lot of time futzing around, wandering the countryside trying to find something to do, or just watching the world go by. OTOH they won't likely see their successes undone and they likely will find that the game focuses on their backstory elements and whatever deeds they seem to be intent on. In a more 'classic sandbox' sort of game that wouldn't be true. There the game might end up with a focus on the player's interests because THEY would move to some point of interest to them.

In the end I almost think that each style of play, if well-executed, leads to some interesting focus of play by different paths, which seems to me to be what you're getting at. In [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s game the whole thing is ABOUT the PCs, the game will always revolve around them and bring action to them. In some other game, maybe [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s, the characters will have to track down or systematically initiate what they're interested in, and then clearly that will be a focus.

There's still the issue of how direct the focus on player interests is. IMHO in the older classic process there were a LOT of possible ways things would often go off the rails. It really is hard to avoid the GM driving play. Most mediocre DMs will end up doing that to one extent or another. OTOH if you follow a narrativist/story telling kind of process, like Pemerton's scene-framing approach, you'd be at least focused on the PCs, and they would be relating to the player's interests directly. It could still be done badly, and I guess one question is which is really the easier process to execute? I don't really know an answer to that, except it would be best in each case to have a system where that process is made very explicit. D&D never did that really well.

Yes, this is largely my point. I like player agency. I don’t think it needs to be ubiquitous. In fact, I think that too much is probably a bad thing. This applies to the authorship as well. As much as an RPG is a story, I prefer it still also remain a game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree that it can be hard to judge what's going on.

Sometimes I'm reminded of these comments from Ron Edwards:
...

True, though I am loathe to cite Ron Edwards, or at least anything that invokes 'GNS'. Its true that we often fall into using his terminology (or some bastardization of it) but I long ago dismissed the theory itself! I think even Ron has...

The posts are lost somewhere in the mass of stuff I've posted on EnWorld over the years, but somewhere there's a thread where I demolished the very concept of 'Simulationism' as a method/approach to play, so how can GNS even stand without that? Anyway, I still agree with the thought expressed.

(1) I read a lot of GM advice books - RM ones, but others too (eg WSG) - which emphasised the importance of strong world-design (maps, pantheons, etc) as important to a good RPG experience. To the extent that I did some of this stuff, it didn't actually seem to pay off. When I ignored this stuff, and just focused on play, nothing bad happened and often good things happened. The basic geography tended to be public knowledge (eg I would lay out my maps of GH and not keep them secret), and the "secret" geography tended to be introduced as part of framing particular situations (an example I can think of is when I decided that the PCs, flying on a demon skiff through the Crystalmist Mountains, came across the Brass Stair from the RM Shadow World module "Sky Giants of the Brass Stair"). Having the tools to think more systematically about the function of backstory, framing etc in the game has helped me get better at this.

Well, I read the 1e DMG, which is basically the UR-source of GM advice. Even in 1979 I was skeptical of much that was said there, but I didn't really have a response. In those days we all thought that if we could make a 'more authentic' game then somehow that would fix our main issues. It was a very naive idea to say the least, but such are 16yr olds...

Then I recall our 1e play largely broke down into high level stuff where the character's agendas ARE paramount because they can escape from any railroad (as long as they're spell-casters) pretty easily unless the GM is willing to either invoke ridiculous amounts of force to create a railroad. That pretty well clarified what the options are.

Next we played some of the nascent story-driven games of the day, like Gangster! and Toon. I guess you could also include some elements of Top Secret, and you've argued rather well Traveler if you play it a certain way (not to say we did at the time).

I remember then STILL attempting to set up one super campaign that would have an overarching meta-plot which I spent some huge amount of time working out. That pretty much didn't work at all (though it spawned a lot of background material to flesh out parts of the campaign world which amused me greatly).

The next time I actually got interested in D&D at all was 10 yrs later when 4e finally appeared. After reading and playing some of the newer systems of that era I assumed it would be mostly a throwback to the old days, but it proved to be a great revelation in play...

(2) RM has a lot of mechanics - <pause for laughter> - that make it almost impossible to draw an end to a scene: spell durations, spell point recovery, injury recovery, even quite a bit of magical healing that requires tracking the time spent concentrating on restoring (say) 1 concussion hit per round, etc, etc. Without an analytic vocabulary for thinking about scenes, framing, etc, while it was obvious to me that some of this stuff was a bit clunky, it wasn't obvious exactly where it was causing problems. (A little-remarked upon feature of 5e is that it has got rid of all those X minutes per level durations, and breaks them down into "1 fight", "1 exploration scene" and "until next rest" durations, just without telling anyone!)

I think RM (plus my one super meta-plot campaign of 2e) is what convinced me that no attempt to make 'better rules for the game world' would ever lead to a better game. Perhaps enduring my brother-in-law's Aftermath campaign helped too (a game with like 100 pages of rules that distinguish every conceivable minute detail about every gun ever made).

4e has the same characteristic, all durations are in 'plot terms' effectively. There are a few places where it talks about '5 minutes' being the duration of a power outside of combat, but the intent always seemed to be 'until you end the short rest in which you invoked this'. I mean, 4e doesn't have a way of measuring time really, or any strong non-narrative reason to do so once you leave combat. Admittedly, 5e is more explicit about this and contains a lot more "exploration focused" details about such things. Of course 4e's agenda just doesn't care about them so much, in the context of an SC all that matters is you expended the resource and got the benefit, a vague statement like 5 minutes or a ritual that lasts 'until you break camp' is perfectly adequate.

So anyway, if we were doing it probably others were and are. On the other hand, it can be very hard to tell. Multiple posters in the past few days of this thread have said that the source of framing material is irrelevant - are they GMing in accordance with their professed principles, or are they misdescribing their own approach to play?

It also seems clear that a lot of non-combat stuff is being resolved through free roleplaying. But in the absence of any actual play examples, and concrete accounts of how GM pre-authored understandings of the situation factored in (like eg who is amenable to being bribed, and who isn't), it's almost impossible to tell what's going on. Which is where the issue of vocabulary comes in again: a recount of the fiction doesn't take us anywhere in terms of understanding how the game actually happened. But there are very few accounts in this thread of actual episodes of play that illustrate how a GM working from notes, together with the players expressing their agency, actually generated some episode of play by way of free roleplaying.

Well, there's a great bit of sensitivity on certain points. I didn't push the point on the incoherence of the very concept of 'simulation' or 'cause and effect within a non-existent game world'. To do so is to generally invite a flamewar (I think there was one poster that dismissed my one foray onto that ground out of hand without addressing it, that's the mildest it gets). I recall having that debate with the guy that claimed his personal D&D hack that he wrote literally resolved all possible game-world situations in a completely objective causally plausible way rather than admit even the possibility that no such thing exists in RPGs! That was a very strange thread...

So, yeah, there's kind of a pall of conceptual smoke over the subject, and it almost seems like you can't try to lift it without the discussion breaking down. I guess you can go to someplace like The Forge, but the little I ever perused of posting there it seemed like it was just WORSE in a different direction... lol. Anyway, we muddle onwards.