What is *worldbuilding* for?

[hawkeyefan]

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

I don’t really see it either, but I’m willing to listen. I’m hoping for an answer that at least begins with a clearly stated yes or no.

I’m also curious how framing is viewed in the sense of multiple players. I’m sure most character groups....adventuring parties, investigators, super teams, starship crews, what have you...have at least some shared goals. But in this story now approach, it seems very likely that each player will also have personal goals for his character.

So if a GM decides to frame a scene where the personal goal of one character is at stake, then what does that do for the agency of the other players?

Surely in a game that has such expectations by the players, there is the risk of not paying equal attention to the character goals. Of focusing more on one character’s story than another. Wouldn’t the player of the character in focus have more agency than the others?

Whereas a more traditional approach along the lines of [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]’s described playstyle, the players are all operating with the same level of agency. That agency may be less than the player for the focal character in the story now game, but it seems like it’s more than the other players in that game are likely to have at that moment.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

But isn’t that the principle in action? Or does it only apply upon realization of the solution. The player introduced the solution of the dragon hoard. It’s only a possible solution, but it is a solution.

What about play that goes more like the below? I’m curious how you’d classify it.

Player: I need cash.
GM: You’ve heard that there’s a dragon in the hills who has a massive treasure hoard.
Player: Okay...good to know. Not sure if I need cash that bad. Have we heard about any other opportubities?
GM: Make a (relevant skill) roll.
Player: Okay....(rolls)
GM (checks results): You’ve also heard that there are bandits in the forest and they’ve been waylaying merchants. There is a bounty being offered for their leader. And, you’ve heard that the northern outpost has been having issues with orcs, and they need folks to help hunt the creatures down. The captain there will pay for help.

Here the GM introduces the possible solution...or solutions, in this case...based on the player’s indication of what the character wants. How would you categorize this example? Agency dead, laughable, alive, limited?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A good analysis, but I think even being this broad it only ends up applying to a somewhat small-ish segment of the overall population of games out there being played.

Why is that?

Because it overlooks and thus ignores three important segments of the population of games: one of which is huge, the other two significant but not so huge. So, in ascending order of size we have:

1. Games run in AL or other organized play environments. These games tend towards running what's fed to them, and both players and DMs can't wander too far off script. The action arrives when a) the module says it will, and b) when the PCs find it.

2. Games that are run as full-on hard adventure paths, where they go through the AP from start to finish and the end of the AP means the end of the campaign. These games are often more or less railroads, albeit railroads that everyone involved has kind of agreed to ride. The action arrives when the train gets to it.

3. Games where the players (and maybe even the DM!) just don't care about any of this and simply want to kick back and have some fun. These are the casual games, and I think they make up the majority of all games being run at any given time. The DM doesn't focus on the PCs to anywhere remotely near the extent of, say, a @pemerton game, and nor do the players "systematically initiate" what they're interested in as is posited might be happening in my game - certainly not intentionally, at any rate. Often in these sort of games the DM either sets hooks or just runs a module, and the players largely go along with it because it gives them a game to play in and a reason to get together and shoot the breeze every week or two. Sometimes one or more players will for a while become engaged enough in some aspect of the game world or backstory to drive the game in that direction, otherwise what adventures etc. get played are pretty much set by the DM mostly by default. These games also generally tend toward less "action", sometimes due to a focus on bookkeeping, sometimes due to table chatter dominating half the session, sometimes due to excess caution and planning and focus on detail both in and out of character, or a host of other reasons.

And of course all three of these game types can be made or broken by either or both of the quality of the DM and the quality of the players involved.

Lanefan

Well, I have no idea how big groups 1 and 2 are. I think group 1 is probably overall relatively small. In terms of 'theory of gaming' or 'practice of gaming' they seem fairly similar to me as well (IE in both cases the practice is to present a fairly cut-and-dried scenario of some length). In case 1 the length is less, the play is more constrained, and maybe characterization is nominal at best. In case 2 the scenario is much longer and to whatever extent the game can diverge from it (though at the cost of sacrificing at least some of the utility of the AP, very similar to the situation with a heavily prepped campaign). I'm not sure what to make of 3, it doesn't seem mutually exclusive to 2 (IE most of these casual groups probably fall into 2, or at least into 'we run modules' even if not a full AP, which seems pretty much like the same thing to me, conceptually).

Still, within 2 and 3 every sort of type of play can, and probably does, exist to one extent or another. I would venture that game mostly start in some sort of mode like this where any idea of RPG practice or theory is non-existent, outside of whatever the rule set in play might convey. I'd note that WotC always seems to trot out some form of their 'types of gamers' theory, which they've rehashed in 3.x, 4e, and now 5e as a type of 'play to the player's interests' kind of advice! They don't go as far as anything like 'scene framing' or narrative play concepts like that, but the advice given is generally consonant with such play. 4e went even further, espousing a type of 'go to the action', although it was never quite couched in terms of player's narrative agenda (instead in terms of player types where these needs were examined at all).

Anyway, I don't disagree that most people play RPGs in an unsystematic way. I'd say, however, that most people who play for a while at least have some idea of "playing to the game at hand", that is acknowledging the theory and conceits of the designers of a particular game. I know that was always true for the people I played with. We always tried to figure out how exactly to play D&D "in the way it was written" for example. Not that we did this very systematically or didn't change things to please ourselves, but I at least always felt like it was worth 'going with the flow of the game'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

It is certainly a commonly used rhetorical technique, making a statement and then simply treating it like a fact. However I see nothing in your statement which provides either evidenciary or logical support for it, thus it is at best unproven and at worst simply opinion.

At least I stated my proposition in a form which can be construed to be a hypothetical. You could certainly afford to do the same

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

In my, and I think [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s methods of play a choice made by a player where the consequences of the choice were hidden at the time it was made, so that no cost/benefit analysis or assessment of the choice's significance in terms of player agenda was possible does not exhibit player agency to any high degree.

Thus if, hypothetically, there's a dungeon maze and the character can go left or right at the intersection, and left leads to a certain-death encounter while right leads to something else, there's no agency on the player's part in making a blind choice. The player might just as well roll a d6 and pick left or right based on the result, or simply follow an 'always go left' rule, etc. Obviously if there is some sort of evidence the player could obtain via action declarations as to the consequences of the choice, then some degree of agency comes into existence.

This is still a lesser form of agency than one in which the player was empowered to suggest a reason for visiting the dungeon and whatever room was explored contained some content related to that suggestion (that is the GM framed the scene in terms of expressed player interest and character need).

I would say it would be UNUSUAL for a character's need to be "get killed by an invincible opponent" but I guess its possible! I would say that if the GM provided the player with information, or at least a chance to get information, indicating that going left would lead to certain death then the player cannot REALLY complain too much if doing so leads to the advertised certain death. Obviously a blind choice leading to certain death is simply a GOTCHA! which I can't see any reason to invoke in any game unless the theme of the game is some sort of bathos (IE maybe this would work fine in Paranoia!, but that's a game where the theme is the utter lack of character agency, and even in that game player agency ala [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is perfectly feasible, though not anticipated much).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don’t really see it either, but I’m willing to listen. I’m hoping for an answer that at least begins with a clearly stated yes or no.

I think my basic answer is "yes, anything can be done badly." lol.

I’m also curious how framing is viewed in the sense of multiple players. I’m sure most character groups....adventuring parties, investigators, super teams, starship crews, what have you...have at least some shared goals. But in this story now approach, it seems very likely that each player will also have personal goals for his character.

So if a GM decides to frame a scene where the personal goal of one character is at stake, then what does that do for the agency of the other players?

Surely in a game that has such expectations by the players, there is the risk of not paying equal attention to the character goals. Of focusing more on one character’s story than another. Wouldn’t the player of the character in focus have more agency than the others?

See my previous answer, anything can be done badly!

Beyond that, balancing different character's needs in the narrative and resolving the various different conflicts can go in different directions. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s example of the Rel Astra scenario illustrates one possibility (IE the agendas of the players and their characters can reach a point where a choice is made to align them or not and that choices forms part of the stakes and consequences of the situation for at least one player).

Its also possible that the agenda of one player will predominate. This isn't all that uncommon in any sort of game (see more below). Part of the GM's job is to help players get some 'face time' in the game so they all get what they want to out of it. Again, it can be done well or badly. Is it possible that some scenarios represent situations which inherently cannot address everyone and may even be dilemmas where some needs CANNOT be met if others are? Its possible. This is sort of like the old time 'Paladin problem' though, the players maybe should work that out and the GM should probably not deliberately force things in that direction unless that's what everyone wants.

Whereas a more traditional approach along the lines of @Lanefan’s described playstyle, the players are all operating with the same level of agency. That agency may be less than the player for the focal character in the story now game, but it seems like it’s more than the other players in that game are likely to have at that moment.

I don't see any reason to believe that 'classical' approaches are more likely to address everyone's agenda than other approaches. I recall the 5e game I was in. I created a character with a pretty strong agenda. I played the character to that agenda and the GM mostly let me do so. At the same time I wasn't trying to monopolize the game, but I think there was a sense in which a lot of it did revolve around stuff that particular character wanted to do. A couple of the other player's didn't seem to really be too wrapped up in their characters, they played and went along, but I will note they also eventually stopped playing. A couple other players simply asserted what they wanted, and it was cool, but the game itself and its nature didn't make this any easier. It required the players and the GM to have a sense of what would be fun for everyone. 5e didn't either help or hinder this. A 'go to the action' narrative focus for the game might have changed the equation some. OTOH the GM of that game wasn't exactly hard-core on any particular way of playing, we just did 'whatever' in terms of technique. It was fine, that table is good, but if it wasn't then things could get borked quickly.

 

[Sadras]

Yes: the player has to choose to ally with Vecna (helps with world domination, bad for his hometown) or choose to stay loyal to his city (doesn't betray his hometown, but puts a bit of a roadblock in his plans for world domination).

In the abstract, sure. In practice, turning against Vecna at this point probably means that the immediate focus of play is going to be on dealing with the fallout from that, and perhaps trying to save Rel Astra from Vecna's attempt to conquer it.

You provided the solution, which is not very much different to...

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).

According to @chaochou player agency = buried and laughable in that scenario.

Given that play time is finite, and given that - up to this point - the player had put his PC's eggs in the Vecna basket, hoping to find some other path to world domination would be likely to be a rather long-term thing.

This sentence appears to go against your style of play or at least the one your advocate for. Why would it have to be a long-term thing, isn't this you exercising GM force over player agency?

....(snip)... in that fourth session, another patron encounter roll turned up a "diplomat" result, an official of the Imperium who recruited the PCs to travel to Olyx to inspect operations there under the cover of the Planetary Rescue Systems Inspectorate. And in the fifth session, more backstory was established about the nature of life on Enlil, and alien origins of both the Enlilians and their virus.

In the fifth session the PCs encountered a patrol cruiser that had jumped from Olyx to Enlil, and I had written up a crew for it which could have generated more backstory about the conspiracy - but in session six (last Sunday) the players decided that they would take advantage of the ship's absence from Olyx to jump there themselves and try and check it out, so those NPC crew membes didn't come into play.

As I have understood your play in Traveller - you roll for an encounter on some table (I presume) and you then you creatively tie the result into the on-going storyline thereby establishing/generating the backstory/mystery?

In 4e, an absence of footprints could be part of the framing of a situation, eg to indicate that the villain can fly or teleport. That would be an obvious exercise of GM agency.

Could the lack of a map in the study not be viewed as part of the framing of a situation and an obvious exercise of GM agency, in that it is discovered through action declaration? Can framing a scene not be revealed in stages/checkpoints?

If the guards are just a roadblock, they sound a bit boring to me.

That said, system also matters here. 4e combat is very intricate, and combats that have little connection to broader dramatic concerns may still allow a group who is into that sort of thing to enjoy playing and expressing their characters.

In one of your posts I read you had introduced doppelgangers as a combat challenge. Were they in any way connected to the story, because it didn't seem so? Or I probably missed it, I was skimming over it pretty fast.

 

[Imaro]

In my, and I think [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s methods of play a choice made by a player where the consequences of the choice were hidden at the time it was made, so that no cost/benefit analysis or assessment of the choice's significance in terms of player agenda was possible does not exhibit player agency to any high degree.

Thus if, hypothetically, there's a dungeon maze and the character can go left or right at the intersection, and left leads to a certain-death encounter while right leads to something else, there's no agency on the player's part in making a blind choice. The player might just as well roll a d6 and pick left or right based on the result, or simply follow an 'always go left' rule, etc. Obviously if there is some sort of evidence the player could obtain via action declarations as to the consequences of the choice, then some degree of agency comes into existence.

This is still a lesser form of agency than one in which the player was empowered to suggest a reason for visiting the dungeon and whatever room was explored contained some content related to that suggestion (that is the GM framed the scene in terms of expressed player interest and character need).

I would say it would be UNUSUAL for a character's need to be "get killed by an invincible opponent" but I guess its possible! I would say that if the GM provided the player with information, or at least a chance to get information, indicating that going left would lead to certain death then the player cannot REALLY complain too much if doing so leads to the advertised certain death. Obviously a blind choice leading to certain death is simply a GOTCHA! which I can't see any reason to invoke in any game unless the theme of the game is some sort of bathos (IE maybe this would work fine in Paranoia!, but that's a game where the theme is the utter lack of character agency, and even in that game player agency ala [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is perfectly feasible, though not anticipated much).

Now You're changing the scenario... No one said it was a certain death scenario... only one in which combat is not a viable option... that leaves plenty of other options open.

 

[pemerton]

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 guess I'm wondering what you have in mind.

For instance, are you thinking of something like this (say as an extreme case): You wake up bound and gagged, paralysed by nerve toxin and unable to move or even blink your eyes?

I’m hoping for an answer that at least begins with a clearly stated yes or no.

Well, I'm trying to figure out what you have in mind. Do you mean something like the above?

Or do you have in mind examples like the peddler with the angel feather? Or Vecna making an offer the PC can hardly refuse . . .?

The reason I am asking is because the (conjectured) burden on agency would come from quite different places. In the first example, it's just the fictional positioning - it's not clear what actions are actual able to be declared.

In the second example, and going on what you and some others have posted upthread, the (conjectured) burden on agency would come from the fact that the situation puts pressure on the player to think about how to pursue PC goals, how to trade off, etc.

I’m also curious how framing is viewed in the sense of multiple players. I’m sure most character groups....adventuring parties, investigators, super teams, starship crews, what have you...have at least some shared goals. But in this story now approach, it seems very likely that each player will also have personal goals for his character.

So if a GM decides to frame a scene where the personal goal of one character is at stake, then what does that do for the agency of the other players?

Both Fate and Burning Wheel have discussions on "spotlight" ie the exepctations on players when another player's issues are more to the fore in play.

Burning Wheel also has advice for players which I agree with: the player has an obligation to play his/her PC so that his/her stuff comes out in play.

And as a GM, I try to draw connections between different PCs' stuff. So eg in my Traveller game, the same planet that is the source of bioweapons material is also the place where there are signs of alien life.

 

[Kobold Boots]

It is certainly a commonly used rhetorical technique, making a statement and then simply treating it like a fact. However I see nothing in your statement which provides either evidenciary or logical support for it, thus it is at best unproven and at worst simply opinion.

At least I stated my proposition in a form which can be construed to be a hypothetical. You could certainly afford to do the same

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

Double quoting here for efficiency.

Guys, it's pretty simple really. I don't have a tenuous grip on my reality. Therefore, I have no problem stating my facts. I know what they are and there's no changing them. If somehow your "real" is more complicated, good on you. Have fun with it.

Be well
KB