What is *worldbuilding* for?

[pemerton]

I can go get in my car and go left or right. My free will has not been altered.

A tangential point - the whole purpose of urban design, including traffic management and the design of transport infrastructure, is to channel agency in various ways. That you see a choice to turn left or turn right on a paved road with footpaths, buildings, etc in the way as no burden on your agency really just shows how much you have internalised certain social expectations and habits.

 

[pemerton]

The players can not only come up with ways that I didn't think of, but come up with ideas that will yield helpful information that I didn't think of.

Where does that information come from? If the GM didn't think of it, who did? (I'm taking it as given that, being fiction, it didn't write itself.)

Most situations that I've seen that are given to show how the DM is thwarting the players with secret backstory are similarly flawed. There are ways to have avoided the situation had they taken them. That's not to say that they can't be thwarted, but that A) those situations are much rarer than people make them out to be, and/or involve railroading.

There are ways to have avoided the situation had they taken them - what does this mean, other than that there is stuff that the GM might have told the players, but they didn't make the right moves to be told that stuff?

 

[pemerton]

you've used this word a number of times throughout this thread, and I don't think it means what you think it means.

"Orthogonal to" = at right angles to, or - in the context of discussion, analysis and argument - cutting across and/or not running in the same direction as.

EDIT: more-or-less as [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] said.

 

[pemerton]

You don't like the technique, which is fine, but then you don't seem to ever even allow the possibility that the technique has anything to offer.

"Having something to offer" looks like an aesthetic judgement of the sort that I hope to avoid.

GM pre-authorship of backstory used to adjudicate player action declarations (eg the attempt to bribe the guard will fail, because the GM has already establihsed in his/her notes that the guard can't be corrupted) will tend to have a certain effect on play: players will spend effort and time during the play of the game trying to learn that backstory so that they can have their PCs achieve the things that they want their PCs to achieve. The way the players learn that backstory is by making moves with their PCs that trigger the GM to tell it to them.

If this is genuinely setting material - as opposed to ideas that might seem useful in play - then what prevents it from affecting player action declarations?

If the material deals with the locations of things, or the dispositions of NPCs, or the hidden forces at work in some game-relevant situation, how does a GM avoid it coming into collision with player conceptions of the shape of the fiction?

The GM's judgment. Why MUST it conflict with what the player wants? Why can't the GM have an idea in his mind ahead of time, with some ideas about what can or may happen, but not committing to anything until the players have interacted with the idea?

Here you seem to be endorsing the distinction I drew upthread between preparation and pre-authorship. What you describe here doesn't seem to be worldbuilding, because it doesn't establish any element of the setting, of the shared fiction

I don't place the same level of value that you place on player agency.

OK. Upthread I had thought you, as well as some other posters, had asserted that the use of GM pre-authored backstory and setting has no implications for player agency over the content of the shared fiction. If I have confused your position with that of some other posters, I apologise.

Quite a way upthread (many hundred posts) I suggested that one thing that worldbuilding (in the sense of GM pre-authored backstory and setting) is for is to provide material for the GM to read/relate to the players. Many posters disagreed with this. But am I right in thinking that you agree? - for instance, this seems to be what you have in mind when you refer to the GM establishing a compelling story. Some of that story will come out because the players make moves that trigger the GM to relate to them pre-authored material that helps make up the story. And some of that story will come out because the GM relates elements of it in the course of framing the PCs into a situation which pertains to/expresses the GM's compelling story.

 

[pemerton]

I’ve posted before that I think that D&D in particular has shifted to more of a player entitlement model, and some take that to the extreme that the DM should not influence the action at all. A “pure” sandbox if you will, where everything is placed ahead of time and the DM only tells the players what they find, and the dice are the only arbitrators to determine results.

That is not an example of the GM not influencing the action at all. The parameters for action declaration have all been established by the GM!

D&D and many other games do not explicitly give the players control of the fiction.

The D&D combat rules give the players a form of control of the fiction. Eg if a player declares "My PC attacks the orc" then (unless certain, relatively uncommon, defeating factors are present) it is true in the fiction that the PC attacks the orc. And if the numbers on the to hit and damage dice are such that (i) the to hit number is high enough relative to AC, and (ii) the hit points dealt equal or exceed the orc's hit points, then the orc is dead - ie a change in the fiction resulting from the resolution of the player's action declaration.

It's not fiat authorship, but it is clearly a type of control.

 

[pemerton]

The definition of player agency is dependent upon the rules of the game being played.

I have been unambiguous in referring to player agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction. If the way some person GMs a RPG means that the players have little or no such agency, then they have little or no such agency.

That they might have some other form of agency over some other thing (eg the agency to trigger the GM to tell them certain things) doesn't change that fact.

 

[Lanefan]

That is not an example of the GM not influencing the action at all. The parameters for action declaration have all been established by the GM!

Though I may be wrong, I think he means the sort of game where once the DM has set the world up and placed the PCs into an initial setting she from there on acts as nothing more than a glorified CPU whose only purposes are to react to what the PCs do, to narrate those reactions neutrally, and to describe the scenery around the PCs wherever they may be.

The parameters for action declaration are set by a combination of the rules system in use (what actions are allowed and-or how are they resolved) and the fictional environment in which the PCs are at the time (as per your example of no boats in mid-desert).

Not my cup of tea, but there's players out there who cut their teeth on MMORPGs and thus expect this sort of thing in a table-top game.

The D&D combat rules give the players a form of control of the fiction. Eg if a player declares "My PC attacks the orc" then (unless certain, relatively uncommon, defeating factors are present) it is true in the fiction that the PC attacks the orc. And if the numbers on the to hit and damage dice are such that (i) the to hit number is high enough relative to AC, and (ii) the hit points dealt equal or exceed the orc's hit points, then the orc is dead - ie a change in the fiction resulting from the resolution of the player's action declaration.

Absolutely. And in most RPGs the players can further control the fiction without referring to dice at all by simply deciding to go that way as opposed to this way, or talk to this NPC instead of that one, or...

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

Again, I think the issue here is your choices to limit your analysis to things you define as supporting your playstyle, like defining agency in respect to the content of the shared fiction.

I've not defined agency as anything. I have talked about a form of agency that I am interested in - namely, player agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction.

I have also talked, at length and in many posts (eg some just made, which repeat points that appear to have been missed in earlier posts) about ways in which players can exercise agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction.

I have also talked about other sorts of agency - eg (apropos of your reference to "gamism") I have talked about the very different sort of agency that is present in classic D&D dungeoneering play (beating the dungeon by mapping it, and coming up with effective methods of looting), and have identified some of the conceits and conventions of play that are necessary to make this work.

As far as Eero Tuovinen's blog is concerned:

(i) He draws upon a pre-existing body of analysis - The Forge discussions of narrativism - in the blog I have linked to. He makes this quite explicit. Player agency in narrativism is all about agency over the content of the shared fiction: see eg here:

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:

*Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.

*Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.

*Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.​

Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about.

There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s).​

(2) Eero Tuovinen doesn't say that players have no authority to author backstory. Eg:

One of the players is a gamemaster . . . The rest of the players each have their own characters to play . . . [O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character​

Part of how a player knows his/her PC is because s/he knows the PC's backstory (which contributes to establishing dramatic needs).

I'm sorry you find what I'm describing confusing. There are any number of RPGs that are written to be run (more-or-less) along the lines of the "standard narrativistic model", where the role of the players and of the GM is (more-or-less) as Eero Tuovinen describes; and in which players exercise agency over the shared fiction in the sorts of ways I have described in posts in this thread.

it seems that what you really mean is that the DM has not predefined where the story goes, as in, there is no plot the DM is following. The play generates the plot through play, thereby giving the players agency over the shared fiction because they help generate the plot of the story through play. But this kind of definition applies to many kinds of DM-facing play as well -- my play example above had the players generating the fiction through their play, I had no notes or plot developed at all, just some prepared combat stats and a map. Yes, they received new information from me, either about elements of the map or the combat statistics, but I didn't provide any plot. In this sense, the 'notes' of the GM don't interfere with the kind of agency you're talking about, but you continue to say that it does. I can only surmise that when you say 'secret backstory' you don't just mean framing notes the GM uses to provide a scene for play, but also a presupposed plot the GM is using to corral play.

I have given examples of what I have in mind. I think they're pretty clear:

To the extent that an important part of play is making moves that trigger the GM to tell them stuff that the GM has (literally or notionally) in his/her notes, the players are not exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction. They are triggering the GM to exercise such agency (if the notes are purely notional) or to relate the outcome of prior such exercised of agency (if the notes are literal). This may happen in a game with a pre-conceived story or plot; it may happen in some forms of sandbox; it is an important part of classic dungeoneering.

To the extent that the content of GM framing reflects the GM's conception of the situation, the point of the game, the nature of the gameworld, etc, that is the GM and not the players exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction. Again, this may or may not be related to the GM having a pre-conceived story or plot.

To the extent that the outcomes of action resolution are determined by treating prior GM authorship of (hitherto unrevealed) bits of the setting as a component of the fictional positioning, rather than using the action resolution mechanics to determine what happens in the fiction, the GM rather than the players is exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction. This may be related to the GM having a pre-conceived story or plot (". . . and then they find the map where it got lost in the kitchen, which means that . . ."); or it may be simply because the GM has made a catalogue of gameworld elements ("the study has a desk in it with empty drawers; the kitchen has a map in the breadbin, where someone accidentally dropped it; the guard is not amenable to being bribed; etc, etc").​

These techniques are often related - eg the more that the third is a feature of play, then the more likely the first will be also, as the players try to make moves that reveal the hitherto unrevealed fictional positioning. (In this thread various posters have described this as "exploring the gameworld", "acquiring information", "investigating", etc.) And one and three tend to lead to two, as they lead to the GM's ideas about the gameworld becoming a prominent aspect of play.

I don't see what is confusing about any of this.

 

[pemerton]

I think he means the sort of game where once the DM has set the world up and placed the PCs into an initial setting she from there on acts as nothing more than a glorified CPU whose only purposes are to react to what the PCs do, to narrate those reactions neutrally, and to describe the scenery around the PCs wherever they may be.

The parameters for action declaration are set by a combination of the rules system in use (what actions are allowed and-or how are they resolved) and the fictional environment in which the PCs are at the time (as per your example of no boats in mid-desert).

I understand what sort of game [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] is describing. I'm just saying that it's a mistake to say that the GM doesn't influence the action at all. When one says that the fictional environment establishes a parameter for action declaration , and also note that the GM established the fictional environment, we see that the GM is influencing actions a great deal.

In thinking about the significance of this for play, I think it's helpful to think about game conventions or conceits. If I turn up to play a session of Moldvay Basic, or of the sort of D&D that Gygax describes in the "Successful Adventuring" section of his PHB, then of course the fictional situation is going to be a dungeon. That's what the game is about. And it has a lot of system elements - mechanics, methods, implicit understandings - to support play in that context.

If I turn up to play a game of AD&D and the GM says, "Right, you're in a desert" that's already very different from the Moldvay Basic case.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, I think what this illustrates is that GMs CAN always 'go with what the players tried'. Its partly a matter of degree, and also exactly which things the players can try (IE can they suggest the existence of the map because a map would be really useful to them and then dice for it, or does it have to be pre-established, or can it be established by the GM on the spot). Its STILL a little different when the thing the players are deciding is ONLY the character's actions (as much as the characters may be 'seizing fate by the horns') the players are still playing within the fiction that was established by the GM. Yes, they have some choices they can make, in character. It isn't exactly the same as making choices outside of character stance. So it becomes a bit more than just degree.

I can't really parse this until I know what you mean by character stance. Firstly, I'm not sure I agree with the stance philosophy, but it has uses, so we can work with it. That said, character isn't a stance I'm familiar with. Do you mean character advocacy or do you mean actor stance? The difference is that with character advocacy, your primary play goal is to advocate for the things you think your character cares about, while with actor stance you play from the position your character inhabits in the gameworld. The former doesn't care if the levers being pulled are in character to meta-game, the latter does.