What is *worldbuilding* for?

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I guess I don't see what is remarkable about such a situation. The character lacks fictional positioning to successfully engage in combat. That is an imposition on available options, but every wall, every tree, every anything in the game imposes those! So I don't think the argument that "only a game with no defined parameters at all grants player's agency" is cogent, and thus there should be no point to be made here.

 

[Sadras]

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

Hmmm, this 3-way conversation between you @chaochou and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] is now reminding me of the conversation between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson on their discussion of truth.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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



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

I don't see any similarity here. In [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s scenario the player chose a backstory and goals for his character. As part of meeting the character's dramatic need a scene was framed. In [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s example the GM stated the need for cash, not the player! And then fed the player a single option himself, which doesn't appear (as far as we can tell) to reference anything substantive about the character or expressed agenda of the player aside from his coin supply. This is even clear in his post where he goes on to contrast it with another example where the player expresses the need and asserts an element of fiction that provides the GM with a framing for it! There's nothing at all incompatible between their two positions, nothing whatsoever.

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?

If the participants in the game expended a lot of effort on establishing certain fiction, goals, etc. and the character invested a lot in that fiction, then simply abandoning it is presumably costly! Its conceivable the GM could simply pop up a replacement strategy for the character gratis in 2 minutes flat at no cost. This isn't usually considered interesting play is it? The INTERESTING play is that the character is now on the horns of a dilemma of serious proportions! Now, perhaps the player can 'up the stakes' in some fashion and hoist his character off those horns.

I can make something up. The character spits in the eye of Vecna, and is rent apart. His spirit returns to Rel Astra to take up the unfinished business of defeating Vecna's plans and becomes housed in a new body as a Revanant! Priests in the city divine that his mission is critical to the survival of their city and he's invested with a special status! Now he's given up world conquest, at least in the form originally envisaged, he's now undead, but he's asserting his now primary agenda of protecting the City. Heck, maybe later he becomes a lich and tries to take over the world, now he's exactly what he was defending against before! (but of course he doesn't see it that way, the road to Hell is paved with gold bricks as they say).

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?

In isolation its hard to actually judge any specific situation. Sure, the lack of a map in the study COULD potentially be an answer to a player statement of agenda, so could almost anything...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

OK, I won't waste my time then, thx.

 

[chaochou]

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.

Yes, this. There's a huge gulf, and tremendously rich gameplay between knowing a solution and making it happen, such that it offers the players a lot of agency and buy-in with very little overhead. The only real requirement is for the GM to let go of 'their precious', relax and participate in the discovery of the world.

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?

Ha! I may often be grumpy and abrasive, but I really prefer not to classify specific instances of other people's play

So your example features interesting points of discussion. And points to reflect on as well, which is always a good habit to be in.

This exchange:

Player: I need cash.
GM: You’ve heard that there’s a dragon in the hills who has a massive treasure hoard.

Is just the kind of thing I might say in a game. Not because I have a lot of prep done with a dragon which I want to show off, but to ask the character the question... "just how badly do you need cash?".

And in fact your character answers exactly that question. We learn something about the character... not their skills or their stats, but something about their personality - cautious, or maybe lacking confidence. If I'm the GM, that's an interesting exchange... it makes me want to see this character in situations which put pressure on their caution or confidence.

Okay, so we get to this:


Player: ...Have we heard about any other opportubities?
GM: Make a (relevant skill) roll.
Player: Okay....(rolls)
GM (checks results):

Does the player know why they're rolling? Do they know what number equals success? Do they know what hitting that number means for the fictional outcome? Does failure do anything interesting?

My instinct from your example is the answers are: not precisely, no, no, no. Of course, that may be a doing it an injustice. But that kind of action resolution exchange sends up a lot of smoke signals of GM control and player passivity.

Then the list of 'jobs' looks a bit generic and scripted. I'd be looking for the player to be generating a lead that interested them and then engaging the mechanics to see how much of what they want actually happens.

So, instead, what would you make of this?

Player: Have we heard of any other opportunities?
GM: Who are you asking?
Player: Well, I know this vagabond Harskold who kicks round the streets. He usually knows plenty.
GM: True enough, he does. Not the most reputable sort, though. Sometimes keeps the wrong company.
Player: Yeah. Well maybe that's the sort of work I'm looking for. I'll go look for him.
GM: Okay, Streetwise 16+. If you make it you find him somewhere quiet and comfortable. If you fail - he's going to be somewhere compromised or uncomfortable. You still want to roll?

I would say the player has created a new character in the streets, the GM used a 'Yes.. and...' to flesh out that character with a bit of an edge which let the player know what sort of work they're likely to get. And then the stakes of the roll have been set - not absolutely nailed down, but enough to work with so that we know we're going to get a new situation from the roll; either negotiation over work, or maybe Harskold in the stocks or a gibbet, or a cell and we each get some new ideas for conflict, risk and reward.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

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.

I agree. Everything can be done badly. Part of my struggle in this conversation and others like it is that very often each “side” presents an example of poor GMing and then uses that example to point out the flaw in that style. Hence the very elaborate examples of play in support of one style, and then a poorly drawn example against another...eg, the map isn’t there because GM.

Essentially, the GM is expected to perform well for the preferred playstyle (framing responsibly), and poorly for the non-preferred playstyle (wielding secret backstoey like a club).

So rather than provide an example, I’m asking simply if it’s possible for scene framing to limit player agency. I think you’ve clearly said you think it can.

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.

Well when I said classical, I meant in the “we want to explore and get into trouvke and loot some dungeons” where all the players are on board. The characters aren’t the focus, and the players are all fine with that. With such shared goals, most players agency is unaffected, so in a way it’s a more baseline level of agency.

Of course it’s always possible (and likely preferable for many) in a player driven game to connect stories together so that certain elements become points of interest for more than one character. But then isn’t that an exercise in GM force? Or at least, couldn’t it be so?

 

[Lanefan]

'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.

What wrong with both having input, as in:

Player-as-PC: I need cash. (states goal)
DM: It's rumoured there's a dragon sitting on a big pile of treasure in the caves. (provides a possible route to achieving said goal)
Player-as-PC: [either accepts or declines this option, or postpones deciding until a later time]

Lanefan

EDIT: Already asked and answered above - I'm late to the party again, it seems.

 

[Sadras]

I'm going to break this up for clarity.

In @pemerton's scenario the player chose a backstory and goals for his character.

Agree.

As part of meeting the character's dramatic need a scene was framed.

I'm going to agree with this based on the fact that the player exercised his option to pursue that dramatic need using Vecna. If he didn't and the scene was framed anyways, then that would be GM force (i.e. lessening player agency)

In @chaochou's example the GM stated the need for cash, not the player!

This is not in contention by me. I never said player agency was dead (using @chaochou's own terminology).

And then fed the player a single option himself, which doesn't appear (as far as we can tell) to reference anything substantive about the character or expressed agenda of the player aside from his coin supply.

Okay but @pemerton did feed the player a single option himself which again according to @chaochou, player agency = buried.

This is even clear in his post where he goes on to contrast it with another example where the player expresses the need and asserts an element of fiction that provides the GM with a framing for it!

Yes, BUT, in @pemerton's game the player did not assert any element of fiction, only the need was expressed.

There's nothing at all incompatible between their two positions, nothing whatsoever.

Do not agree, based on my above responses.

If the participants in the game expended a lot of effort on establishing certain fiction, goals, etc. and the character invested a lot in that fiction, then simply abandoning it is presumably costly! ...(snip)...

This isn't usually considered interesting play is it? The INTERESTING play is that the character is now on the horns of a dilemma of serious proportions! Now, perhaps the player can 'up the stakes' in some fashion and hoist his character off those horns.

Agree.

This isn't usually considered interesting play is it? The INTERESTING play is that the character is now on the horns of a dilemma of serious proportions!

Are you saying GM-force 'buring' (using @chaochou's word) player agency is okay when it is interesting play for the DM (presumably)?

Its conceivable the GM could simply pop up a replacement strategy for the character gratis in 2 minutes flat at no cost. ...(snip)... I can make something up. (something cool made up)

From @pemerton's own words it sounded like it would take long.

In isolation its hard to actually judge any specific situation.

But have we not been using this find-the-map-in-the-study example (in isolation) to show how its not hard to hammer home how the some group of DMs supposedly limit player agency. I'm saying the framing is broken up between many rooms and that player agency still exists. Now I'm being told this example in isolation is too hard to judge a specific situation.

I'm pretty sure [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] was stating something similar with his 'smaller moves' example further back in the thread.

 

[Sadras]

Player: Have we heard of any other opportunities?
GM: Who are you asking?
Player: Well, I know this vagabond Harskold who kicks round the streets. He usually knows plenty.
GM: True enough, he does. Not the most reputable sort, though. Sometimes keeps the wrong company.
Player: Yeah. Well maybe that's the sort of work I'm looking for. I'll go look for him.
GM: Okay, Streetwise 16+. If you make it you find him somewhere quiet and comfortable. If you fail - he's going to be somewhere compromised or uncomfortable. You still want to roll?

I would say the player has created a new character in the streets, the GM used a 'Yes.. and...' to flesh out that character with a bit of an edge which let the player know what sort of work they're likely to get. And then the stakes of the roll have been set - not absolutely nailed down, but enough to work with so that we know we're going to get a new situation from the roll; either negotiation over work, or maybe Harskold is the stocks or a gibbet, or a cell and we each get some new ideas for conflict, risk and reward.

@pemerton has often spoken about setting the stakes before the roll with the 'yes but complication', and I'm pretty sure he has probably listed something like this so openly before, but I have never actually seen it. This is a whole new way of roleplaying D&D for me. It makes understanding the handling of the 4e SC mechanic much easier. Thanks for the detailed example.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Of course it’s always possible (and likely preferable for many) in a player driven game to connect stories together so that certain elements become points of interest for more than one character. But then isn’t that an exercise in GM force? Or at least, couldn’t it be so?

If the GM only allows for certain scenes and/or outcomes REGARDLESS OF THE EXPRESSED DESIRE OF THE PLAYERS then its GM force. If all the players agree to address certain elements jointly, then no, its player agency. If some players get their way and others don't, then some mix of things is going on, but we can classify this as problematic and hope to improve on it.

The key point is it isn't 'GM force' when the GM frames a scene which is responsive to the players. It is just the GM doing 'GM stuff'.