What is *worldbuilding* for?

[billd91]

The game establishing default setting expectations isn't worldbuilding in the sense that the OP asks about. It woudl be interesting to ask what is the point of the D&D equipment list, for instance, but the OP wasn't asking that.

But also, in Classic Traveller it's quite possible that the resaon the character can't find an official willing to issue permits for cash is because there is not such official in that place. The rules don't specify either way. (Again, I stress the contrast with the Psionics Institute rules.)

Yes, and (again) I stress the predisposition you have to seeing it that way while others may not. (Hey, if you're going to repeat yourself so soon after your previous post, so am I.)

I'd also point out that the contrast with the Psionics Institute rules is because the institutes are specifically not only intended to not always be present (unlike corrupt officials) but are intended to be rare - a significant element of Traveller world-building given the assumption that most Traveller campaigns are in Imperium space and not Zhodani space.

 

[pemerton]

I'd also point out that the contrast with the Psionics Institute rules is because the institutes are specifically not only intended to not always be present (unlike corrupt officials) but are intended to be rare - a significant element of Traveller world-building given the assumption that most Traveller campaigns are in Imperium space and not Zhodani space.

The Psionics Institute rule was written in 1977, before Imperium and Zhodani space were published as settings for the game.

The rareness seems pretty obviously about GM gatekeeping over a complex and potentially undesired rules module.

 

[pemerton]

Nah, prepping encounters is world-building. Are any of them creatures you've never used before? If so, by using them you've made them part of the world.

Prepping an encounter isn't the same thing as using it. I've got a couple of worlds on my list of Traveller worlds that haven't appeared in play yet, and may never do so. I generated one in the course of working through the world gen system, and I think I got the other one by writing up a world I was reading about in some sci-fi book in Traveller terms. They're both on the list just in case.

And if the preparation consists of a dragon in its cave, and the setting is already established as a standard D&D one, that's not worldbuilding either (given that standard D&D settings contain dragons and caves, and caves with dragons in them).

Some prep may be worldbuilding. But not all is.

Do they have independent motivations other than being sacks of hit points for the PCs to whack? Then you're world building.

Again, the motivation may be established in play. The notes may be ideas - "memo to self" - that don't actually get used. Etc.

It is possible to come up with ideas (mechanical ideas, thematic ideas, story ideas) without making it true that those are part of a shared fiction (the gameworld).

 

[Lanefan]

Well, in a particular game it depends what the priorities are and how the magic works in that setting.

True.

One thing I'm very sensitive to is imposed changes on a PC that could make them no longer satisfying to their player. I'm talking about mid to long term changes here, not short term ones - it's reasonable to expect a player to put up with a short-term condition such as an injury or mind whammy.The one thing that players have nominal control of even in conventional games is their PC - anything that potentially messes up that PC long-term is an issue to consider carefully. Long term mind control of a PC definitely has the potential to be problematic, depending on how it works.(crippling injuries were the other issue that could make a PC unfun or unplayable in the eyes of their player. In the majority of RPGs I've been in the players can retire characters on request, though the referee may try to persuade them not to.

Permanent death kinda makes a character unplayable too; and in all these cases it is (or most certainly should be) possible to retire that character and bring in another one. (though in the case of a dominated character which has been instructed to remain in the party...yeah, that's a tough one; though IME some players would quite happily play it as directed if it came to that)

Some systems of magic are absolute and deterministic, but can be run differently, and there are magic systems which are considerably more ambiguous and amenable to negotiation. If the mind control effectively makes the PC an NPC, then forcing the player to keep playing the character seems cruel and unusual punishment.

Again true. The problem here is that if the controlled PC is given over to the DM to play the rest of the players will immediately know something's up, and that's information they shouldn't have.

That said, most domination effects I've ever seen either have a reasonably short duration or require the continued presence of the dominator in order to maintain the effect. I'm not sure how it works in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's game, but as the continued presence of a Naga around the party would surely have raised some eyebrows one can only assume the domination effect in his game had a much longer (or permanent?) duration.
EDIT: posted this before reading post 222 above, wherein he explains how it works in his game.

However, if the priority in the game is that the player keeps playing that PC, that means the mind control has to be tolerable and the PC still playable.Seeing as the game magic is entirely fictional and doesn't exist, it can work any way that group wants it to work. Consistency that makes the participants miserable is arguably foolish and counterproductive.

Another option is the DM sits down with that PC's player out of session, explains what she has in mind, and tries to get the player to buy in. (my own experience with such things is the player buy-in usually increases in direct proportion to the amount of guano-disturbing they'll be able to do within the party, as it can always be explained away later with "Hey, I was possessed!")

 

[Lanefan]

(1) I've never talked about a "right way" to play. I started a thread with a question: some posters answered it (@Nagol, [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION], etc). Some other posters - [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] - asserted or implied that by asking the question I was insulting them. To be frank, that's on them, not on me. If they don't want to answer the question "what is GM worldbuiling for", or think that the answer is so self-evident that to ask the question is to commit some RPG faux pas, well, no one is forcing them to post in the thread.

I'm not at all insulted that you asked the question and am somewhat surprised that you seem to think I am.

I've given my answer to the original question in varying amounts of detail several times over the last 225+ posts. That it's not the answer you're looking for, or are willing to agree with, isn't my problem. You asked, I answered.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

I'm not at all insulted that you asked the question and am somewhat surprised that you seem to think I am.

Upthread you referred to the question as a backhand slight.

 

[pemerton]

That it's not the answer you're looking for, or are willing to agree with, isn't my problem.

Well, it's an answer the I find puzzling.

You say that it's not reaslistic for the map to be where the player wants it to be if the GM would prefer it to be elsewhere. Which is clearly metagame thinking, because you're reading the causal effect of the player's desire back into the fiction.

But you also say that you don't wnat metagaming, you don't want the player to be thinking about anything outside the perspecive of his/her PC, etc.

And from the perspective of the PC it's not remotely unrealistic that the map should be in the study.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, it's an answer the I find puzzling.

You say that it's not reaslistic for the map to be where the player wants it to be if the GM would prefer it to be elsewhere. Which is clearly metagame thinking, because you're reading the causal effect of the player's desire back into the fiction.

Ah, I think I see where my lack of clarity may be getting in the way here.

Meta-gaming on the player side is always bad. Metagaming on the GM side is in many cases just part of the job....but with that said, there's desireable DM metagaming and undesireable DM metagaming.

An example of desireable DM metagaming is when the DM uses her knowledge of what's where and how things fit together in the game world to drop clues and hints, and make a mystery out of something. She could, for example, have had the PCs at some point find a very cryptic map showing (somewhat ironically) where in the castle the map they're looking for is hidden - cryptic enough that when the sought map is found the PCs will look at this other one and say "Ahhh, that's what it was trying to show us!". She can't do anything like this if she doesn't know where the map is going to be found. She could also eariler have put out some hints and clues that pointed (more or less cryptically) at this castle rather than the other one across the valley (for which she has a different adventure or module all ready to go, knowing there's at least a 50% chance that the PCs are going to head over there and explore it at some point because that's what adventurers do).

An example of undesireable DM metagaming is when the DM changes the next adventure to feature less combat once she sees the players aren't bringing any front-liners to the dance and haven't thought to recruit or hire any.

But you also say that you don't wnat metagaming, you don't want the player to be thinking about anything outside the perspecive of his/her PC, etc.

And from the perspective of the PC it's not remotely unrealistic that the map should be in the study.

The map certainly could be in the study - that's why we're looking for it there. But we've turned the place upside down and given it the most thorough search we can and lo and behold: no map. So we'll move on to the library and search there; then the drawing room, then the bedrooms...and if those come up dry we'll move on to less likely locations such as the wine cellar or the kitchen. Long story short, we know it's here somewhere - we just have to find it.

And who knows, on the way to finding the map we might find all kinds of other neat interesting stuff!

Lan-"though experiences tells me one of two things will happen: they'll search for weeks and find nothing, or they'll beeline right for it as soon as they're on site as if they knew where it was all along"-efan

 

[Nagol]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] so in essence, good meta-gaming enhances the play experience for the group and bad meta-gaming undermines the value of player choices/actions?

 

[billd91]

An example of desireable DM metagaming is when the DM uses her knowledge of what's where and how things fit together in the game world to drop clues and hints, and make a mystery out of something. She could, for example, have had the PCs at some point find a very cryptic map showing (somewhat ironically) where in the castle the map they're looking for is hidden - cryptic enough that when the sought map is found the PCs will look at this other one and say "Ahhh, that's what it was trying to show us!". She can't do anything like this if she doesn't know where the map is going to be found. She could also eariler have put out some hints and clues that pointed (more or less cryptically) at this castle rather than the other one across the valley (for which she has a different adventure or module all ready to go, knowing there's at least a 50% chance that the PCs are going to head over there and explore it at some point because that's what adventurers do).

There's also dealing with divination spells like, well, divination and augury. Much easier to adjudicate those if there's something there.

An example of undesireable DM metagaming is when the DM changes the next adventure to feature less combat once she sees the players aren't bringing any front-liners to the dance and haven't thought to recruit or hire any.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this one all the time. The composition of the group as well as the choices they make could be a signal to the GM what kinds of adventure situations to design into the campaign. For example, if everyone's a martial character with little spell-casting, I'm not going to run a campaign for them that virtually requires a spell-caster for success. They're telling me that they don't want that kind of campaign. If they'd rather wade in and have it out mano-a-mano, I'll give it to them. Granted, this is something that should be hashed out at the beginning so I don't invest my time prepping situations that won't be a good fit.

If, however, there's one area or two they keep coming up with a weakness but they otherwise seem to be enjoying the campaign, then the onus is on them to adjust to cover their weaknesses.