What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Maxperson]

Nope. Not my arguments at all.

I didn't say anything about your arguments. I just said that it seemed like you were using the second definition.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I didn't say anything about your arguments. I just said that it seemed like you were using the second definition.

It wasn't a slam, man, it's just an open statement that my arguments aren't using the definition you said they were. I'm assuming honest misunderstanding, not nefarious purposes. Don't take it personally.

 

[Maxperson]

It wasn't a slam, man, it's just an open statement that my arguments aren't using the definition you said they were. I'm assuming honest misunderstanding, not nefarious purposes. Don't take it personally.

Heh. Text sucks for tone

I wasn't taking it personally. Just making a clarification.

 

[Lanefan]

If you ever need an example to illustrate the difference between Gygaxian play and narrative play, here it is. I'm trying to imagine the expression on [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] 's face if a player suggested this in his game.

My expression probably wouldn't be anywhere near as shocked as you might think.

If I've put a room in the dungeon with walls covered with sigils I'm already going to know what - if anything - those sigils represent. So, were a player-as-PC to suggest they might represent a map I'd respond much the same way as if they'd suggested they represented a coded message or a pictorial history or the beer menu in the local pub.

Of course, a simple casting of Comprehend Language or the language-reading ability of a decent-level Thief would eliminate many possibilities...

It would probably be similar to the expression on Pemerton's face if someone tried to swap places with their king and rook in his game.

You know....since that's a move for another game entirely.

I don't think it's quite that clear-cut in that with the sigil example if the players-as-PCs want to decipher any message they in theory have to investigate it; and before they do, any suggestion as to what the sigils might contain is just as valid as any other.

The difference between my game and maybe [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's is that player suggestions and ideas are most likely not going to change what I've already determined the sigils represent (if anything), with a lesser but still existent chance of their suggestions leading them completely astray if they come up with what seems like a brilliant idea and never bother to verify it (I've seen this happen many times).

Lanefan

 

[hawkeyefan]

My expression probably wouldn't be anywhere near as shocked as you might think.

If I've put a room in the dungeon with walls covered with sigils I'm already going to know what - if anything - those sigils represent. So, were a player-as-PC to suggest they might represent a map I'd respond much the same way as if they'd suggested they represented a coded message or a pictorial history or the beer menu in the local pub.

Of course, a simple casting of Comprehend Language or the language-reading ability of a decent-level Thief would eliminate many possibilities...

I don't think it's quite that clear-cut in that with the sigil example if the players-as-PCs want to decipher any message they in theory have to investigate it; and before they do, any suggestion as to what the sigils might contain is just as valid as any other.

The difference between my game and maybe [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's is that player suggestions and ideas are most likely not going to change what I've already determined the sigils represent (if anything), with a lesser but still existent chance of their suggestions leading them completely astray if they come up with what seems like a brilliant idea and never bother to verify it (I've seen this happen many times).

Lanefan

Well I was being a bit cheeky, sure. But ultimately, to make it a bit specific...Permerton is playing Burning Wheel, and you're playing some form of D&D (maybe AD&D 2E based on your comments and descriptions?).

So why would someone playing D&D try to play it like Burning Wheel? Or why would someone playing Burning Wheel try to play it like D&D? I would expect such a deviation from expectations would be out of the ordinary. Whatever these games may have in common, they very clearly function differently. They are different games. So like I said, it would be like trying a chess move in D&D....it would be out of place.

Now, could one or both of those games be made to play like the other? Probably at least a bit, sure. And could the table play the game with that change understood? Absolutely. But generally speaking, one player trying to play one game like the other would probably cause a bit of an issue.

 

[Lanefan]

Well I was being a bit cheeky, sure. But ultimately, to make it a bit specific...Permerton is playing Burning Wheel, and you're playing some form of D&D (maybe AD&D 2E based on your comments and descriptions?).

1e, with 35 years worth of tweaks and modifications. To an outsider it would probably resemble 2e as much as it does 1e, these days.

So why would someone playing D&D try to play it like Burning Wheel? Or why would someone playing Burning Wheel try to play it like D&D? I would expect such a deviation from expectations would be out of the ordinary. Whatever these games may have in common, they very clearly function differently. They are different games.

If they're that different, no wonder these discussions go in ever-expanding circles as we try to apply their conceits to RPGing in general.

Now, could one or both of those games be made to play like the other? Probably at least a bit, sure. And could the table play the game with that change understood? Absolutely. But generally speaking, one player trying to play one game like the other would probably cause a bit of an issue.

Yeah, I think I'd last about ten minutes in a BW game before I started playing it wrong...and by 'wrong' I mean playing it like I've played D&D for several decades.

Lanefan

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I find it immensely sad that we've somehow gone from this...

...to this


Low level play is great! The lucky survive and move on, and the unlucky die. Just like it'd be in real life, were real life to have adventurers like this.

Yeah, except in real life people just don't relish that sort of thing. PCs are NOT like real people, not at all. If you've ever lived through something horribly dangerous, you'll have a vast appreciation of that. Even if it was something you got yourself into.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with playing low level meat grinder dungeon delver. I just did it. I did it a LOT, before 1980 I did it a LOT. It got old after a while. Now, if you came along and said "hey, lets play old school just for some fun and laughs" and the people were cool, and the DM was cool, and we were just doing it because we just wanted to do that thing, that would be OK. I'd probably do it. I THINK I'd probably want to advance fairly quickly to some more interesting levels, but I 'get' what you want from this. I just don't want to spend my entire gaming lifetime in the same activity that was engaging at age 12! I'm a lot older than that now, and I have a somewhat different agenda. Its not tragic that I moved on. OTOH, its just a diversion, its not tragic if you want to keep doing it the same old way.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yeah, except in real life people just don't relish that sort of thing. PCs are NOT like real people, not at all. If you've ever lived through something horribly dangerous, you'll have a vast appreciation of that. Even if it was something you got yourself into.

Not to mention real life was like D&D. Except with all those horrible disease charts, death in childbirth charts, oppressive governments, roving bands of murderers...

Yeah, humanity sort of collectively said "this sucks" and so now we don't have that.

Living or dying on luck doesn't IMO make for a terribly interesting game. We might as well just throw d20's against the wall and take shots every time we roll a nat 1. I think on average, that would be more fun than a D&D game based entirely on luck.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with playing low level meat grinder dungeon delver. I just did it. I did it a LOT, before 1980 I did it a LOT. It got old after a while. Now, if you came along and said "hey, lets play old school just for some fun and laughs" and the people were cool, and the DM was cool, and we were just doing it because we just wanted to do that thing, that would be OK. I'd probably do it. I THINK I'd probably want to advance fairly quickly to some more interesting levels, but I 'get' what you want from this. I just don't want to spend my entire gaming lifetime in the same activity that was engaging at age 12! I'm a lot older than that now, and I have a somewhat different agenda. Its not tragic that I moved on. OTOH, its just a diversion, its not tragic if you want to keep doing it the same old way.

Games like that sort of remind me of the Minimum Wage Crank.

Yeah, we've all got to turn it for a while, but to turn it for a long time? Nah, hard pass.

And this is coming from a fairly brutal DM. I just prefer being brutal when my players can take it. Murdering a bunch of low-level characters is about as fun on the DM side as it is on the PC side.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Its hard to even critique this, as it lacks any logical coherence as a meta-physical position, an ethical position, etc. I guess maybe we could approach it in the realm of aesthetics? Maybe??? I'll try to comment....

There are different definitions of causality. It seems that you and @pemerton are focusing on the one that says every effect has a cause. @Ovinomancer seems to be focusing the one that says that it's the relationship between cause and effect. For the second definition, there is causation in D&D fiction that drives the rules. A wizard casts fireball(fictional cause) and a fireball appears doing fire damage(rules effect). A rogue attempts use a wand of fireballs in the fiction(cause) and if the use magic device is successful(rules effect) a fireball appears doing fire damage(rules effect). That's causation. There is a direct relationship between cause and effect.

Where to even begin. First your 'second definition of causality' is utter gibberish. Its self-referential to start with 'causality is the relationship between cause and effect' except 'cause' means 'the thing which is responsible for an effect (which is itself a condition of being or quality, a state of the universe at a time) definitionally after the cause. So your definition doesn't make sense, it cannot be analyzed. There may be a relationship between cause and effect, but it is definitional what that relationship IS.

A rogue attempts to use a want of fireballs in the fiction - This is simply a story told by a participant in an RPG, probably an action declaration.

A UMD check is made, successfully, a fireball appears in the fiction - OK that COULD HAPPEN, but it is NOT CONDITIONAL ON THE FIRST PART OF THE NARRATIVE. A convention of the RPG being played is that a declaration by a PC of the first type should be followed by a declaration and a check, etc. However one does not lead inevitably, causally to the other. The actual chain of causation (at least in common parlance, I won't get into higher metaphysics) is a series of social conventions and shared concepts being exchanged between minds of people playing a game. They are not obliged to do one thing vs another, and no one thing they do is any more a 'cause and effect' relationship (in terms of the fictional narrative) than any other!

Also, just because as you point out above we can't describe why magic fire is affected by being underwater, doesn't mean that there is no causation involved. Here in the real world there isn't a single person on Earth who can tell us why everything happens the way it does. We have to guess at things, too. That doesn't mean that there is no causation going on, but only that we don't understand it yet. The game rules cannot be as detailed about the game fiction as what we know here on Earth, so there is more of causation that DMs and players have to guess at, but that doesn't mean that causation doesn't exist in D&D.

No no no no no!!!!! Even by YOUR concept of causation this is bunkum! BECAUSE you cannot describe why the fireball won't work underwater you have PROVEN that it isn't 'causation', but mere convention. There is no chain of proximal effect which can bridge from one state to the other, merely a social convention "in this game, fire doesn't burn underwater." IT COULDN'T BE MORE CLEAR.

The fact that things happen on Earth for reasons we have not determined (and may not be able to determine in specific) doesn't mean the same thing at all! It just means we don't have all knowledge. There is still a complete reality in which we can express conservation laws, symmetries, etc which would describe why these things happened, if we DID have that perfect information. Reality is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN CHARACTER from your RPG fiction. In fact they have virtually nothing in common. No causation of any kind exists in D&D, except at the table in the real physical world!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, this is very likely the case. But then this is more about the GM using the game mechanics responsibly, so to speak. Ideally, he won’t be pushing an agenda. But it certainly seems possible, no?

I think a GM who is learning to play in the 'Pemertonian scene framing' technique should probably hold off on creating an agenda for himself, at least on purpose. I mean, once you've been around that tree a few times, sure, experiment, figure it out! I'd say as a start, make all the elements generally supporting of and directed at establishing, contextualizing, and focusing on the player's agendas as described by the conflicts their characters get into and the needs they express.

This goes back to it being more a case of GM performance. Separate of the rules or mechanics or even the chosen style, the GM can perform well or poorly.

Pemerton’s premise and much of the discussion presumes that the GM in examples of his chosen style will perform per the ideal, and that GMs in examples of a more GM driven style will of course perform poorly.

Eh, I don't know about that. I think GM-centered play puts a LOT of weight on the GM's shoulders. I think its pretty hard to pull off well. I think a collaborative narrative type of play is probably no easier, but poor or good GMing helps/hurts in both styles. Obviously if you play in a specific way, you point out the flaws you found when you played a different way, that explains your choice! I think we all chose, so we all have experiences of issues with alternate ways of playing. I don't think anyone is particularly trying to be biased. I mean, I KNOW I can run a pretty decent game in traditional style. Its a proven thing for me. I just like the other style better.

But by the same token, a GM driven game need not be a case of the GM thwarting player creativity. I feel my style as described seems very much in line with the folks in the thread who are arguing in favor of player driven play. Yet my game contains “worldbuilding” in the sense that I do have GM authored elements that I introduce into play.

However, the elements I introduce do not rob my players of agency.

Ultimately, I feel he’s eatablished a false dichotomy based on trends. They are not the absolutes he portrays.

One could argue that to the extent your game has those virtues you are converging on [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s style of play, or mine, etc. It really IS a continuum. I think its possible to find strengths in GM centered play, although I also think that a lot of games aren't really leveraging those, and might be even more cool if they tried to mix in some player agenda.

But I don’t think that the GM adding something entirely mew and separate of what the players have pre-established as desires for play must be bad. In fact, I think such things can add quite a bit to a game.

I wouldn't argue that it is. I argue that it is what it is, but that often it DOES get in the way of player agendas, at which time it becomes detrimental, and a LOT of GM's don't seem to know better.