What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Aenghus]

I've said many, many times that if you don't trust the DM, you shouldn't be playing that game. I can't imagine being able to have fun in a game where I couldn't trust the DM.

Trust isn't a single numerical value, it's complex, multifaceted and ideally reciprocal. You can trust people on some issues and not on others. You can trust someone and still have issues with them when they have a bad day.

I can't count the number of times as a player that a game has been going wrong, and the referee made an appeal to just trust him and the game would work out, often without taking any steps to improve the situation, just sticking to their guns to the bitter end. This is entirely anecdotal but my impression is that the player's perception of trouble in the game was generally accurate, and mostly the referee was being over ambitious, or hadn't left any room for the players and the game quickly failed. Occasionally the game was able to recover from a nose dive but only when the GM attempted to address the issues causing player unhappiness.

IMO trust is more difficult in an adversarial game IMO, as it is in a game that values intra-party conflict. Monolithic parties are to some eyes unrealistic but they are an attempt to sidestep some of the trust issues, and streamline play by avoiding a bunch of the drama such conflict creates. I realise some people like such drama and conflict, but there are others who don't and are willing to take steps to avoid it.

 

[Emerikol]

Because the real world is not a fiction that someone authored. Asking who has agency over the content of the real world doesn't make any sense. The real world isn't content/I], it's actual stuff that enters into actual causal processes.

Well we could debate this as it relates to God but that would be a sidetrack . I do feel the GM is tasked with creating this world to the best of their ability.

But a fiction is authored. So if the GM writes the bulk of the fiction, and the players principal relationship with it is to learn it from the GM, then player agency over the content of the fiction is close to zero. Describing that as the same as their agency in the real world is just obscuring what is really going on, which is that they are learning the content of a fiction written by someone else.

In a properly created world, there are three possibilities. The GM has specifically authored that a rock is present or not, the GM has authored that the area could have rocks but it's not certain so their is some chance. No matter the answer if the GM has created a world and actually knows the location of rocks I'm fine with it. If he doesn't then the second option comes into play. Perhaps a building having a window is a better example. If I detailed out the building in advance then I tell the player what is seen. If not then I'd have to dice for the chance that side of the building had a window. Either way, the player should be unaware of how that fact is known. The player character just gets told continuously the state of affairs of the world as the player interacts. Perhaps allow the PC to roll is where things go wrong. I don't have the PC's rolling for what they see. I roll it secretly and sometimes I roll even when I don't need to roll.

I want my player characters to feel as if every single solitary atom of this imaginary world already exists. Logically we know that is not possible. Still a fair GM will do a lot of detail in the gaming area and less detail about far away places but enough. The GM will also know enough about the world in general to make good estimations on things he doesn't know for certain. Wandering monster tables for example are an example. No I the GM do not know at any second if a monster will be wandering through this area but I do know they are through here about 10% of the time or whatever.

What does making things happen mean? In the real world, I can throw a rock and break a window.

At the RPG table, the players can declare "I pick up a rock and throw it at the window." Who decides what happens? Who decides if there is even a rock or a window ready to hand? Until we know how these things are established, how can we work out who has what sort of agency?

I think the mistake you are making is calling it agency. Your concern is likely valid for a particular playstyle. I'm not questioning that. If though as a player, you can ask what you see and then affect what you see in meaningful ways you have agency. So it might be an argument about semantics.

Now I will agree with you (I think) on one thing. If a GM just says Yes or No without prior design and without any recourse to a die roll based on some probability then I think that is not good. If though the GM has designed a building and one side has no windows, then answering "You see no windows" is not taking any agency away from players. It's a mere conveying of facts about the actual state of the imaginary world. Just like if I said to you "My house has no windows on the north side"

Now maybe that's not your game. Maybe the player gets to make a roll to find a rock. Maybe the player gets to make a roll to find a window. Maybe the player gets to make a roll to have a thrown rock break a window. But then it's no longer true to say that the GM is tasked with establishing the state of the world - because in fact the player can do that, by making the rolls just described.

The GM will roll if the state of something is not certain. This is a concession to the fact GM's can't establish the location of every rock. In a perfect world, at least to me, the GM could do that. We know that is not possible. So instead we establish what we perceive are the important things about an area, and we establish reasonable probabilities for anything not thought of.

What you say about how I play my character is correct (subject to mechanics like morale checks etc).

When the GM does the same thing in respect of some NPC the players are trying to have their PCs relate to, or get some benefit from, etc, that is another mode of the GM exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction.

An example of the difference here would be the GM deciding that a certain NPC won't take a bribe; compared to Classic Traveller, which resolves that issue through a mix of a reaction roll and a Bribery check. The latter allows a degree of player agency that the former doesn't.

When it comes to NPC's which are a GM's greatest challenge, I think you set probabilities based upon various factors. Even so I am sure there are cases where practically that probability is zero. I do think it is worth a GM's efforts to learn about his NPCs but again there will always be the "red shirts" of the game who perhaps you only know a little. In those cases of course you roll. Again, there are very few NPC situations where I wouldn't roll.

This is true for me too - I suspect just as much as it is true for you - but that is neither here nor there for the current conversation.

When I'm in the head of my character, and I look around for a rock to throw through a window, there needs to be a way of working out what my character can see and hence what s/he can do. There are a lot of possibilities, but the main ones discussed in this thread are (i) the GM decides or (ii) the player makes a roll. One gives agency to the GM. The other permits some agency to the player.

Also: there is no judgement in the above, just analysis.

I think agency again is the wrong word usage here. I think I agree with you though that GMs who just arbitrarily decide everything based on whim is not my idea of a good GM. I do though think a GM who builds his world and carefully develops his NPCs etc.... will not have to resort to a roll in every case. This is why in "dungeons" I develop my NPCs and how they will react and their plans when attacked. I determine those plans based on the intelligence score. Then when the PCs enter the dungeon and develop their own plans I follow my original plan and I'm unaffected by what the PC's do (thus avoiding bias). That doesn't mean I never dice for anything. I do all the time. I roll a morale check often off camera for whether the residents will stay and fight or run away. That roll is based on how formidable the PCs seem and how difficult the fight has been on the bad guys. My monsters don't stupidly die. They act according to their intelligence.

As a GM, I feel my job is to present a "realistic" world given it's a fantasy setting. I want my NPCs to act in believable ways. Success to me is when my players hate one NPC and love another and I'm playing both as GM. It takes real effort and commitment to be a good GM. You won't lack for a group though if you make the commitment. (And I'm not saying that you are or aren't a good GM. That last statement was just in general.)

 

[Emerikol]

Also as it relates to the map. I believe as GM I would ALWAYS know the location of something so important ahead of time. I may not know about every rock or every window in every building every single time. I will know where a primary treasure is located. So I would never allow a successful roll to find a map when the map is not present.

 

[Maxperson]

Trust isn't a single numerical value, it's complex, multifaceted and ideally reciprocal. You can trust people on some issues and not on others. You can trust someone and still have issues with them when they have a bad day.

I'm not talking about a bad day. It generally takes more than that to break trust. If I'm in a game and I cannot trust the DM, I'm going to leave it. I have better things to do than worry when the DM is going to screw me.

I can't count the number of times as a player that a game has been going wrong, and the referee made an appeal to just trust him and the game would work out, often without taking any steps to improve the situation, just sticking to their guns to the bitter end. This is entirely anecdotal but my impression is that the player's perception of trouble in the game was generally accurate, and mostly the referee was being over ambitious, or hadn't left any room for the players and the game quickly failed. Occasionally the game was able to recover from a nose dive but only when the GM attempted to address the issues causing player unhappiness.

So that was a DM that couldn't be trusted, which is why the game failed. Look, I'm not talking about some mythical perfect DM who never makes mistakes and only makes players feel like happy rainbows. DMs make mistakes. The ones that work to correct them and bring back the fun can be trusted. When entering a new game I will extend trust from the beginning and let the DM prove me wrong. If he does, I will leave.

IMO trust is more difficult in an adversarial game IMO, as it is in a game that values intra-party conflict. Monolithic parties are to some eyes unrealistic but they are an attempt to sidestep some of the trust issues, and streamline play by avoiding a bunch of the drama such conflict creates. I realise some people like such drama and conflict, but there are others who don't and are willing to take steps to avoid it.

D&D is not an adversarial game. If it was, the players lose......always. The DM can drop a dragon on them at first level and win the game. D&D is collaborative, but with different roles for the players and the DM. If the DM, or players for that matter, are viewing the game as adversarial, something has gone terribly wrong. The goal of the collaboration is enjoyment for those playing it. It makes it really easy to trust the DM if you realize that you are all working towards a common goal.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've said many, many times that if you don't trust the DM, you shouldn't be playing that game. I can't imagine being able to have fun in a game where I couldn't trust the DM.

Well, I can understand the desire for player driven play, and therefore for mechanics that limit GM responsibility. I feel like such a game isn’t so much about a lack of trust than it is for mechanics that will support a preferred style of play.

But I agree with you that if the GM is and can be trusted, that even a game that lacks such mechanics can be player driven.

 

[Nagol]

That’s kind of odd. Do you mean as a player or as te GM?

And when you say you don’t care if the story is boring, do you mean adhering to the mechanics is the more important goal? Or am I misunderstanding?

Success at whatever task I choose is much more important than how dramatic the story would sound on retelling. I don't care whether the narrative would be considered good literature or story-telling -- developing the story is tertiary to having fun at the table as a group and being true to the character I'm trying to portray.

As a player, I am more concerned about acting as I think the character would act. Would the character try to generate drama? Possible, but not likely. Because of my nature, it is more likely the character would try to be competent and effective in his role. If I think my PC has the capability to stop a bomb in 10 seconds, but we're at the two minute mark, would I delay trying until the time becomes more dramatic to enhance the narrative? No. Would I strive for a dramatic confrontation if I think I can win more quietly? No. Would I as a player seek out or attempt to inject any form of dramatic impact on the narrative? Only so much as the character would. Competent and effective characters tend to avoid drama save that which directly suits their purpose; dramatic moments tend to be messy and unpredictable.

I don't care if the narrative ends up being a good story. Let's face it: we're not professional story-tellers by and large. Most times tables can at best pull off cheesy, cliché ridden, and corny stories anyway. And that's OK. We're not trying to make a wonderful story with appropriate narrative highs and lows in a 3 or 4 act structure with a strong beginning, middle, and end. We're trying to have fun at the table while portraying people/things that aren't us. If I have fun raiding a temple that ends up being a cakewalk because the group did a good job investigating and planning, hey, that's great. Better in fact than if we spent the time to do a crappy job investigating and planning and the raid ended up more suspenseful and climactic 'by the skin of the teeth' win because we weren't prepared.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, the DM and players have very different roles. DM agency is supposed to be different. That agency doesn't take away from player agency, though, unless the DM is abusing his power or makes a mistake.

Sure, there is no inherent conflict between the two. They should be able to complement each other ideally.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I can understand the desire for player driven play, and therefore for mechanics that limit GM responsibility. I feel like such a game isn’t so much about a lack of trust than it is for mechanics that will support a preferred style of play.

Yeah. I wasn't suggesting that player driven play is about distrust for the DM. It just seems like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has a sour taste in his mouth about standard play, and from the way he talks about those DMs, it seems like he's had some bad experiences.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, there is no inherent conflict between the two. They should be able to complement each other ideally.

Yes, they can absolutely complement each other. My issue with this is how [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is saying that there is limited to no player agency in my style of play, when player agency is at 100% in my game. It's a little insulting. The DM agency he grants to his players doesn't change their player agency at all, it just blends the two agencies into a new playstyle.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The issue I have by making a claim like that is that it does seem you do not take the playstyle into consideration which is a callback I believe to Ovi's posts (chess vs checkers) and a conversation I shared with @AbdulAlhazred. .

Whereas in your game you frame the entire dungeon as a whole and then cut straight through to the room with the map, the other style is to frame the dungeon as a boardgame* which requires/challenges players to find the map in the dungeon while providing smaller framings (by the DM) for each corridor, hallway and room...etc

This is why I disagree with your premise in the OP as the boardgame style is still VERY prevalent today (in particular in D&D games) and this is clearly evident given the AP and modules which are being published by WotC.

EDIT: The type of player agency you require for your games is just not as important in the (for lack of a better term) boardgame style where fictional positioning of the map is done by the DM.

*using one of your analogies for ease

I'm not entirely sure this is so. I think that there's a great qualitative difference between the typical mid-80's TSR module and a Gygaxian dungeon in the style popular 10 years earlier.

As an example: In 1976 I purchased a copy of Holme's Basic. My copy didn't come with a module (there were various permutations of 'extras' in the boxes at different times). Instead it came with a 'Monster and Treasure Assortment' (a series of 3-hole-punched pages filled with tables of pregenerated monster and treasure pulled from the tables in the MM (IE number appearing and such, plus the results of rolling on the treasure type tables). I assume these were generated from material in OD&D as they went on up to higher levels than Holme's covered. Anyway, there was also a product called 'Dungeon Geomorphs' in the package, which was just sheets of endless corridors, rooms, doors, etc filling 8.5x11 sheets of (also punched) light cardstock. They were printed in such a way that they could be cut up and rearranged so that they would (mostly) connect together in various permutations, allowing a budding DM to almost instantly produce a vast maze.

Combining these two products together almost literally created a sort of random generated dungeon maze. You would almost certainly provide a lot of additional creative input, maybe custom map sections, secret doors, special encounter areas, etc. The result would be a workable dungeon in the tradition of (presumably) things like Blackmoor Castle and Castle Greyhawk dungeons (I don't believe that either Gary nor Dave every ACTUALLY published the exact maps they used in their early games, so its hard to say they looked a certain way, but I suspect they were similar dense mazes of rooms and corridors and whatnot based on the evidence I have from their writings).

This was early D&D. A completely drawn up Maze, stocked with hazards, patrolled by wandering monsters, and ready for the DM to, relatively objectively, adjudicate the player's exploration thereof by way of their PCs. This is how my first D&D campaign was structured. There was a 'castle' beneath which was a vast maze of dungeon into which the PCs plunged in search of treasure and magic. When they were sufficiently depleted they would return to the 'town' and buy whatever they needed from the equipment list in Holme's Basic, or other materials we had (The Dragon, hand copied bits and hand-me-downs of OD&D stuff, Judges Guild another 3PP stuff, and our own 'rules' we wrote to fill in the blanks).

There was no story, no progression of an arc of any kind. At that point there was no world into which this locale was set, no logic to why it existed, nothing. The game was purely encapsulated in dungeon exploration and now and then some sort of ancillary to that like some sort of 'town adventure' (IE trying to hire henchmen, getting characters resurrected and paying for it with quests, etc).

So there really IS a pure Gygaxian dungeon crawl (or maybe we should really call it Arnesonian since he made the first dungeon). I won't say that it is always 100% pregenerated, but it is, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] alluded to, a very specific and set format of game. In a sense it is almost transitional between tabletop wargames and RPGs. Imagine what was happening in Dave Arneson's basement (or whatever). He was making up this thing, cobbled together from his experiences with 'Kriegspiel' and Chainmail, with some other wargames mixed in. Each foray into the dungeon was a game, each player picked a character, perhaps an ongoing one from previous games, and they followed a set of tactical rules to explore a region of dungeon map prepared by the referee. There were two unique features, having one PC as your 'game piece', and an explicitly open-ended set of exploration options that would be mediated against the environment by the referee, soon to be called DM.

The sorts of extended adventures, specific quests, elaborate NPCs, and linear storylines, which are features of later modules didn't really exist in these things. If you look at B2 it is PRETTY CLOSE to what they were doing in 1974. There's a castle, there's a dungeon (Caves of Chaos), and the PCs are expected to clean out the dungeon and refresh themselves in the town, the Keep. Maybe now and then they can have some bit of adventure in the Keep, but its inhabitants are largely mundane. There are a few who can offer a service or two, you can hire a few hirelings, buy a healing potion or three, get a remove curse thrown on you for a steep price, etc. Otherwise it just serves as a place to rest while you heal, store spare loot, and plausibly pick up the replacement PCs that will be required to finish the adventure.