What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

the same example applied to a more GM driven, D&D style game is equally useless. The players are not likely to try and manufacture the map through a search of the kitchen. Instead, they would simply indicate that they search the kitchen, and leave the results of their search up to the GM. So in this case, the GM is not actually denying any agency on the players’ part because none is expected in this manner wen playibg this type of game.

Well, the GM hasn't denied agency because the players haven't sought to exercise any. That is not an argument that the players have agency! It seems to agree with me that, at this particular moment of play, they do not have agency over the content of the shared fiction.

 

[Sunseeker]

Well, terms like "little" or "modest" aren't simply synonyms or euphemisms for "none".

They sure read like it.

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] seems to think that it is an important aspect of player agency that the players provide colour (what their PCs say, wear, etc). I personally don't agree, as a player can do this in the most egregious railroad imaginable.

I both agree with him on this, and don't see how the latter is relevant. There are a hundred degrees to player agency. This is part of (as someone termed it above) the "golden box" of the player. I'm a VERY strong proponent of a player being able to define their character's appearance in whatever degree they want provided there are no specific mechanical implications. IE: the design of footwear in D&D is never specified. Certain items have certain looks, but generally it is unmentioned, and different styles of shoes have nothing more than flavor impacts on the game, so if a player wanted to specify that they wore high-heels or flip-flops or geta (japanese sandals), that's within their realm of determining since specific style of footwaear has no impact on gameplay.

I'm ALSO a very strong proponent of players being able to say the words they want to say. There are always exceptions, but I have held a long hatred for video games where the button says "I agree with Bob." and what really comes out is "I think Bob's mother is a Orc!". The players are in charge of what they say and how they say it, is a die roll is required, it doesn't change what they say, it determines how well it sounds to the other players/NPCs.

In games like D&D where players have very little Fundamental Freedom, it is important to allow them that freedom as often as possible. It is psychologically very impactful to have this sort of control, even if that control has fundamentally little impact on the gameworld. Indeed when people have fewer freedoms they can become quite fierce in holding on to them.

You may argue that players should have more Freedom, and that's fine, but don't undersell the value of the Freedom they have.

Lanefan likewise seems to think that it is an important aspect of player agency that the players can declare actions for their PCs ("I move from A to B"; "I attack the orc"; "I look for the map"). I regard this as only very modest agency: except in the most dysfunctional game players have enjoy this sort of agency in any RPG. What is significant, in my view, is what happens in the resolution of these action declarations. If the fiction that will be encountered at B, that will result from the attempt to search the map, and even that will result from attacking the orc (see [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s example upthread of the fiction that results from charming the harlot) are all authored by the GM on the basis of unrevealed notes and ideas about the setting, then the player is exercising very little agency - all s/he is doing is triggering the GM to narrate and perhaps first to make up some fiction.

Yes, again, we have come through this many pages to finally establish that you believe Authorial Agency is necessary for players to have true Player Agency. I mean you can say that's not what you mean, but the way you write, the way you disparage Player Agency that lacks Authorial Agency makes it, IMO, pretty clear that you really don't think Player Agency without Authorial Agency is true agency.

 

[pemerton]

when I lean on the players to add things to the game, I was initially met with blank stares. “You see a grizzled old warrior amidst the throng of people in the market. He seems to be watching your group with some intent. Bob, you recognize this man. Why do you recognize him?”

Well, as I've already said multiple times upthread, this is not a technique that is significant in the games that I GM. I think it's largely a red-herring in discussions about player agency, because it turns the focus on to collaborative storytelling rather than the core of traditional RPGing, which is player authoring of a PC and player declarations of action for that PC.

In D&D they don't, at least not in the context of authorship. By the RAW of most editions, they can only declare things their PCs are capable of it, none of which has any author agency.

"I search the study for the map" and "I hit the streets hoping to meet up with one of my contacts" are both declarations of actions that the PC is capable of.

But that tells us nothing about how those action declarations are to be resolved. They don't have to be resolved by reference to GM-authored, unrevealed backstory (like the map isn't there or all your contacts are either dead or too scared to speak). In Classic Traveller (1977), it is clear that Streetwise checks are not to be resolved that way.

I feel like there is little trust being afforded to the GM throughout much of this discussion. I’m not sure why.

There was an extensive discussion of this c 500 posts upthread. It's nothing to do with trust. I'm sure as a GM I could tell a somewhat interesting story. But it's not what I want out of RPGing.

The point generalises: the reason I want to exercise agency as a player is not because I don't trust the GM, but because the GM isn't me, and I want to play my character. [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] made a nice post about this around 80-odd posts upthread.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Now this is a very interesting approach.

4e D&D and (from what I can tell) some of the 'indie' games referenced in this thread have an underlying philosophy of 'go where the action is'. The DM is expected to frame dramatic scenes and the players are expected to deal with these scenes via means appropriate to their characters.

Yet here we have a player who would rather use exploration and wise information gathering in order to go where the action isn't; in effect mitigating or sometimes entirely denying the DM the opportunity to frame these dramatic scenes as long as doing so allows character goals to be met, missions accomplished, etc.

This to me is an important form of player agency that is entirely denied by 'go where the action is'. I rather badly waved at this idea a long way upthread; I'll try again here, using the example from @pemerton 's game where the PCs were looking for a reliquary, and met some angels en route that showed them the way to get there. As written, the PCs conversed with the angels after which pemerton-as-GM went where the action is and framed the scene in the reliquary; and things proceeded from there. (note this might not be the best example to use but it's one I can remember the gist of without having to dig around)

A player using @Nagol 's approach loses out on gobs of agency here:
- s/he doesn't get the opportunity to explore the approaches to and surroundings of the reliquary before arriving at the drama; which means
- - s/he doesn't get a chance to explore the area around the reliquary to determine whether there's more than one possible approach or exit
- - s/he doesn't get an opportunity to pre-scout the reliquary itself via stealth or scrying or whatever other means might be available in order to assess its occupants, threats, hazards, etc.
- - because of this lack of knowledge s/he isn't able to mitigate potential risks or prepare for a potential encounter via pre-casting spells, downing potions, or whatever other means might be available
- before all this, s/he also loses out on any opportunity to explore whatever might lie between the angel encounter site and the reliquary - by bypassing this the GM has arbitrarily decided there's nothing there of relevance rather than allowing the players to find out for themselves

In short, there's no opportunity given for the players to force the GM to change his initial framing of the reliquary scene from what it ended up being; or delay it until more information could be gathered.

Now pemerton's players are probably fine with this as it's what they're used to: cut to the action and skip the rest. But I wonder if they even realize how much agency they're giving up in the process?

Lanefan

It is just another sort of player agenda. Why can it only be served by a GM-centered system of play? I would phrase this as "player wants to be a careful strategist." OK, so when you describe the orcs that are menacing town as part of your framing of a situation for this to be brought out, then the player can say "what about their water supply?" and either GM or player centered process can determine that there is indeed a well and where it is, and some plan can be hatched to poison it instead of trying to fight some ugly battle with the main force of the orcs.

Now, my bet is, having both run and played this sort of scenario a number of times, that the well ain't going to be located and poisoned with a couple of tosses of the dice! It is going to be guarded, hard to find, inside some dungeon, cursed, poisoning it will entail also harming someone that you don't want pissed at you, or whatever. This is all well-within the realm of what I can do using my techniques. In fact it is all quite likely.

My experience with GMs and playing inside THEIR agenda is that a lot of them don't like this kind of thing too much. They feel like its a cheap way to get rid of the orcs. Maybe they allow it, but they punish it or they just decide that the orcs have some other water supply or whatever. They already decided on a story arc where the orcs menace the town and there's a battle, which they're invested in. I'm not saying this GM is a 'bad' GM, just that this is VERY typical and the weakness of GM-centered play is this tendency to want to stick to their story arc because they've put a lot of work into it. Moderately good GMs will maybe give some ground, some of the orcs are poisoned, or you win the first round but more orcs come back later, although you now maybe get some other new options too as a reward. Still, things tend to get stuck in certain patterns VERY easily. I know it doesn't HAVE to be that way, the technique is not hopeless or even bad, it just has its weaknesses.

 

[pemerton]

here we have a player who would rather use exploration and wise information gathering in order to go where the action isn't; in effect mitigating or sometimes entirely denying the DM the opportunity to frame these dramatic scenes as long as doing so allows character goals to be met, missions accomplished, etc.

I've discussed this at length upthread. "Gathing information" means learning stuff that the GM has authored. That is not player agency over the content of the shared ficiton - practically by definition!

 

[Nagol]

It isn't about TRUST, it is about "what is the most reliable and useful process by which to translate the player's agenda and wants into the narrative so they get to play characters that address those things?" That's all it is about. Why go through the roundabout process of having a GM devise an entire setting in detail without reference to the players, and then try to translate that into addressing what they are interested in? Why make every element of the plot and setting the sole responsibility of the GM so that he has to figure out a way to understand what the players want and then do it, instead of just having the player say "My character is interested in overthrowing the Duke, I think I know a guy that has some dirt on him <throws Streetwise check>. YUP! OK, so now I know that the Duke actually had an older brother, but he mysteriously disappeared before their father died..." What is really wrong with that? I don't get it. Its just a lot more reliable and less work in my long experience than hoping that the GM will 'get' your suggestions and deign to add said NPC to the game.

I mean, its not as if the GM can't say after the player's declaration above, "yes, but the guy you want has just been sent on campaign, so you can't ask him about it, and all you heard was a rumor that his wife gave you. If you want to find out the truth, you're going to have to dig deeper. As you return from your friend's house <check made behind screen> you get the feeling someone is watching you..."

Its not like the GM is ceding all his role in constructing the plot here. He's just not the only one anymore that can introduce some element of narrative into the fiction.

Now, lets say the character finds out that he needs a map in order to figure out where to look for another clue (something the wife said keyed him in on this, which required a history check, note that in my process this is ALL an SC). So the map is searched for, and maybe its found in the kitchen, lucky break! Maybe it isn't found, and the player is left failing to advance this element of the plot. OK, that's fine, there's always some other direction to go in, he can take a journey to find that guy that knows the stuff. He can try to nab one of the people following him. He can just find some other way to undermine the Duke.

There's nothing wrong with that. Except. It. Doesn't. Work. For. All. Types. Of. Games. Specifically, exploratory play or play where the players are expected to maintain actor stance -- you know, the games I like to play. Those are the games where world-building really shines.

Heck, I run player-led games much of the time even though I don't like to play them. I restrict such gaming to game systems that offer strong support for player input mind you (like FATE, my favourite RPG Champions, Teenagers from Outer Space, and others) where the focus is absolutely nowhere near exploratory play in the typical sense. Even in other game systems that don't specifically offer player (as opposed to PC) agency, I often include it through house rules/ other game mechanics like the use of Whimsy Cards. On the other hand, my current campaign was sold to the players as a massive set of mysteries to uncover: the players have zero agency outside their character actions and the players seem quite pleased with the ongoing investigations -- it's in its 5th year now.

For games with strong player-led roots, world-building is very helpful. It gives something to inspire the players/for the players to riff off of. It is harder to build in a vacuum than to alter an existing element.

 

[Nagol]

It is just another sort of player agenda. Why can it only be served by a GM-centered system of play? I would phrase this as "player wants to be a careful strategist." OK, so when you describe the orcs that are menacing town as part of your framing of a situation for this to be brought out, then the player can say "what about their water supply?" and either GM or player centered process can determine that there is indeed a well and where it is, and some plan can be hatched to poison it instead of trying to fight some ugly battle with the main force of the orcs.

Now, my bet is, having both run and played this sort of scenario a number of times, that the well ain't going to be located and poisoned with a couple of tosses of the dice! It is going to be guarded, hard to find, inside some dungeon, cursed, poisoning it will entail also harming someone that you don't want pissed at you, or whatever. This is all well-within the realm of what I can do using my techniques. In fact it is all quite likely.

My experience with GMs and playing inside THEIR agenda is that a lot of them don't like this kind of thing too much. They feel like its a cheap way to get rid of the orcs. Maybe they allow it, but they punish it or they just decide that the orcs have some other water supply or whatever. They already decided on a story arc where the orcs menace the town and there's a battle, which they're invested in. I'm not saying this GM is a 'bad' GM, just that this is VERY typical and the weakness of GM-centered play is this tendency to want to stick to their story arc because they've put a lot of work into it. Moderately good GMs will maybe give some ground, some of the orcs are poisoned, or you win the first round but more orcs come back later, although you now maybe get some other new options too as a reward. Still, things tend to get stuck in certain patterns VERY easily. I know it doesn't HAVE to be that way, the technique is not hopeless or even bad, it just has its weaknesses.

Depends strongly on the DM type. For a sandbox DM like myself, I never invest in a story arc. I establish situations. I probably have a good idea what will happen absent player action. PCs will find difficulties that are plausible and defined without reference to specific character strengths or weaknesses. Sometimes this can make a situation a cakewalk for a particular party. Other times it can make the situation almost impossible to achieve for the same party. It is up the players to decide what to become involved in, what actions to take, what stakes to wager.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ah, but now you're taking a playable example (a happy-go-lucky chap who wants to adventure for the fun and excitement of it) and throwing back an unplayable example (the town drunk who does nothing) to try and prove me wrong.

A happy-go-lucky character is very playable, believe me! Arguably the best character I've ever had was like this: her wisdom was so low that she just thought most of the time adventuring was all just good fun (except when her friends died, then the tears came); and afterwards spending the treasure was wonderful! She lasted for years, in a 3e game that wasn't always nice to its PCs.

I don't think this character is unplayable in my type of game at all. I've seen them as well. They're usually all about loyalty and team spirit or something like that. I mean, there is going to be something in everyone's personality that makes them agonistic, right? There are things you like and don't like. Happy the Half-orc likes his friends. When they're in trouble he gets roused! It isn't just 'tears come when things go bad' its "I'm going to rescue my friends!" and now you have a story hook...

Assuming the player was cool with that, sure. But if the player (in character) takes the attitude of "OK, farm's saved, I'm done here - and they need help with the harvest, besides", then what? I'd hazard a guess games like this don't handle PC turnover quite as easily as a more traditional system.

OK, you want to declare your character's needs met and conflicts over, then so be it! I don't understand how this is a problem. A player in any kind of game could choose to switch characters, or at least lose interest in what they're playing. I suggest that there's no reason to think one way of playing makes this more fraught than another. Obviously it can cause some impact on the game, but in a case where the player's are largely driving things, it certainly isn't going to mess up all the GM's carefully laid plans...

Very true. My point was more that character one can fulfill its goals without ever leaving heroic tier while character two has to get to epic and even then might be up against it.

Yeah, I can accept that this could be true. I am only countering that 'fundamental concerns are eternal' in a sense. If your character's core motivation is true, then it can always be tapped in some way. Lets suppose you're motivated by a desire for revenge against a villain who's 10th level and you become his equal and gank him. There's still a more fundamental thing going on, your character is angry about injustice, he feels like something unfair happened, or maybe his attitude is just 'life sucks and then you die', but those are still highly suggestive of continued agenda that COULD drive you in higher level play. Obviously if the players only want to play to 10th level, then that's cool!

So strip away all that and just look only at cause A and effect B. Your brain will thank you for it.

I'm perfectly happy, in an aesthetic narrative sense, to do so. My point is that INFINITE narratives can be justified in any game situation due to the complexity of causative process. Its a fig leaf to say that the GM is bound by some one specific possible narrative or even by some finite number of possibilities. Nor can we even really judge, beyond the very shortest time scale, even the probabilities of different things being likely in any realistic sense. This is what I mean by "causality has no bite", it just isn't binding.

I think it's binding not only on the DM but the players as well. If I swing my sword at an orc and the sword turns into a bunch of flowers in mid-swing there'd better be a cause behind that: a curse, a spell, a hallucination, whatever. If it just happens 'because' then there's little point in playing further.

OK, you make up an entirely implausible and silly-sounding example, but you must admit that 1000's of possible narrative outcomes of a sword swing can be generated. We could probably list 100 of them right here in this thread in the next half hour without breaking a sweat. That's enough for me!

And if you want to get technical IN THE REAL WORLD the example you give is not forbidden by the laws of physics. Quantum mechanics doesn't rule out ANYTHING, it just states what the chances are of seeing different kinds of outcomes. That's rather trite given that we can be safe in assuming we'll never see the sword turn into flowers even in 100,000 goggleplex years, but my point is that causality is REALLY THIN ICE to skate on (and now Jethro Tull has stuck in my mind's ear).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's nothing wrong with that. Except. It. Doesn't. Work. For. All. Types. Of. Games. Specifically, exploratory play or play where the players are expected to maintain actor stance -- you know, the games I like to play. Those are the games where world-building really shines.

OK, I suspect it must be REALLY hard to find games to play in if you only like to play in games where you stay in character every moment and even a relatively brief pause to add some element to the situation which relates to your character is unacceptable. I've played a lot of games at a lot of tables in 40-some years, and maybe run into that once. I mean, I yield the point, and I just literally have to take your word for it as I think this is beyond the experience of almost everyone else here.

Now, the question of 'exploratory play' is very much worthy of more discussion. I'd propose that it is heavily characterized by imaginary exploration, but that isn't a very revelatory statement. Naturally, in the context of the current discussion what difference does authorship make here?

For games with strong player-led roots, world-building is very helpful. It gives something to inspire the players/for the players to riff off of. It is harder to build in a vacuum than to alter an existing element.

OK, this is another interesting point to discuss. I personally think that strong and distinct THEMES are most useful. So, for instance, I had a 'player centered' game which we all mutually agreed would be set in a sort of fantasy pseudo-Arthurian milieu. This is a very strong theme with a lot of associated tropes and archetypes, knights, damsels, tournaments, curses, quests, magical items, spells, sorcerers, etc. There wasn't a really strong NEED to have a GM defined setting in detail. We did all agree together before starting play on the existence of some specific characters and possible plot elements and how they related to the characters the players were creating. It was a pretty decent game.

Likewise I did a space-opera themed one. It was somewhat similar, except I (for whatever reason) generated a more elaborate starting milieu of my own devising. It was pretty thematic, but it didn't go as well. The whole pregenerated aspect got in the way of what the players were really wanting to do. I must say that what I find is its hard to KNOW what that is right off. Often you really have to play to find out what the important conflicts really are. This game was OK, but less world building probably would have been better.

 

[Sunseeker]

"I search the study for the map" and "I hit the streets hoping to meet up with one of my contacts" are both declarations of actions that the PC is capable of.

But that tells us nothing about how those action declarations are to be resolved. They don't have to be resolved by reference to GM-authored, unrevealed backstory (like the map isn't there or all your contacts are either dead or too scared to speak). In Classic Traveller (1977), it is clear that Streetwise checks are not to be resolved that way.

Yes that's why I was referring specifically to D&D in my post about how it has low player agency by default. I never suggested it was how all games did things, or even how all games should do things.

Context is key.