What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ovinomancer]

<Removed your responses to @hawkeyefan>
Huh?

The PCs arrive in town. They want to befriend the baron. They also learn that the baron's advisor is, in fact (but unknown to the townsfolk or the baron) the leader of the hobgoblins who are assaulting the town, whom they've been pursuing for some time.

The situation puts pressure on the players - it may be hard for the PCs to befriend the baron while also meting out justice to his advisor - but what choice of the GM's devising is being forced on the players? They can choose as they think is appropriate.

Who framed the dilemma that put pressure on the players? If it was not the players, then it's the DM, who has chosen a crisis that the player have to react to. The players didn't chose that crisis. They must now make choices about what the crisis the DM framed.

 

[innerdude]

The framing is the establishment of some shared fiction, which speaks to the PCs' dramatic needs. It doesn't dictate options.

The players learning that it will be hard for the PCs both to befriend the baron and deal with the leader of the hobgoblins doesn't dictate their options. It does establish a context for making choices that will tell us something about these protagonists . . .

. . . As for the bit about the ability of the players to author things into the fiction - I will repeat again that the games I GM generally do not involve player fiat authorship, and in my view that this is largely a red herring as far as player agency in respect of the shared fiction is concerned.

"Is there a vessel in the room that would allow me to catch the mage's blood?" isn't "authoring things into the fiction." It's just an action declaration.

You've lost me here for a bit, @pemerton --- "Is there a vessel in the room that would allow me to catch the mage's blood?" isn't an action declaration, it's a query --- I'd call it a "scene frame query." It's asking for confirmation from the GM about a particular element within the scene frame.

An action declaration would be, "I find a vessel in the room that would allow me to catch the mage's blood, and I start capturing the blood." An action declaration of this type does include direct player authorship of something into the fiction---the presence of the vessel.

So how, then, do we move from "scene frame query" to the actual action declaration, "I find a vessel in the room that would allow me to catch the mage's blood, and I start capturing the blood"? From a practical, in-game perspective of actually GM-ing, this is where it starts to get interesting for me.

1) The GM can simply agree with the player without any consultation to game mechanics. "Oh yes, of course, there's a small ceramic pot with a plant in it, you can easily toss out the plant and collect some of the blood." (In some cases the GM may not even acknowledge the act of finding the vessel, but move immediately to the narration---"Okay, you're now catching the dripping liquid into an urn.")

2) The GM can consult a chart or establish an ad hoc probability and roll against it. "Oh, you know what, there might be a vessel --- roll a d20, on 7+ there is, on 6 or less, there isn't." Or perhaps, "Hmmm, I don't know, let me consult this 'stuff in a typical wizard's tower' chart and see what we get."

3) The GM asks the player to process the frame query through some relevant PC mechanics. "Sure, roll a search check, on a success, you've found a vessel, on a success of 5 or more, you find a perfectly clean, pristine pot or urn that will not taint the blood."

Which, if any of these, are you advocating for?

Then let's say a session later, the player who captured the blood says, "Hey, you know what? I bet that tainted sorcerer's blood has some cool magical properties. I bet if I sprinkle it on food, the food will become toxic." This would definitely be player-authored fiction. How as a GM would you determine whether this is "allowable" fiction?

Of course, the PCs may also be unaware of the "secret backstory"---"The PCs can take the blood of the dead sorcerer to Goulash the Dread Witch of Lower Sobovia, who can only be found in sector X55 of the map and the PCs will only discover sector X55 by singing a bardic tune to the stone giantess. Upon receiving the blood, Goulash will grant them 15,000 gold pieces and bake them apple pies to give to the winter wolf." <<<< If THIS is the kind of worldbuilding you're against, I totally see your point; this is rather useless trivia to the players, that will likely never be useful or speak to any sort of dramatic need. It's mere window dressing included only because the GM really likes the metaphorical "sound of their own imagination."

But this is a different play component from querying the scene frame and determining the state of the fiction through either agreement or mechanical/probabilistic outcome resolution.

The more I consider it, the more I'm not sure that the concept of "secret backstory" is really all that helpful. The principle of the matter is, "Be open to letting players really advocate for their characters, and leave elements of the fiction open to letting them do that." As a GM, I'm simply not inclined to ask myself about every single thing I note down about the game world and get all up in arms and anxious about, "Oh crap, have I introduced the dreaded HIDDEN BACKSTORY!!!????" If it turns out later that some piece of pre-authored fiction could be altered in response to what the players are doing and the stakes in the fiction, then just change it. I don't think it does much good to worry about it before hand.

The question each group has to answer is, at what scale or level of specificity are the players allowed to either A) outright introduce elements to the fiction, or B) query the scene frame to determine if a fictional element can appropriately be introduced?

And then find a system that successfully meets the criteria of their answer.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not sure what you mean by "abuse" here.

This 'Czege principle' people keep referring to is one obvious means of abuse. Metagaming might be another, as would simply playing in bad faith.

You may have players that play nice within your system, as do I for mine. But not everybody is so lucky; there's players out there who will abuse the hell out of any loophole they can find, just because that's how they play, and any system that allows for direct or even indirect player authorship leaves itself wide open for such abuse.

But anyway, as I have said many times upthread already, the games the I GM are not ones in which players are per se empowered to author elements of the fiction as part of action declaration.

It's a fine distinction, but your players are - from what I can see - empowered to indirectly author elements of the fiction, as follows:

DM: <describes the room and its contents, including a bleeding mage on a table>
Player: "I search the room for a container to catch the blood!"
<dice are rolled, search is successful, blood is caught>

The container wasn't in the DM's initial description of the room, so the DM didn't author it. Who authored it, then? The player, of course, indirectly via the successful search action.

And this is the sort of thing I mean when I suggest players can in fact author elements in a system like what you use. The success of such authorship just isn't guaranteed until the dice confirm it. See previous discussions elsewhere about secret doors for another example of this.

The framing is the establishment of some shared fiction, which speaks to the PCs' dramatic needs. It doesn't dictate options.

It might not dictate options but it certainly can remove or deny some.

Go back to the reliquary example in your game. The PCs met with some angels who agreed to show them the way to the reliquary, and from there you jumped straight to framing the scene at the reliquary. While this leaves open all the options for what the PCs do once they arrive it denies any and all options for what they might have wanted to do on the way (e.g. further conversation with the angels, making note of any interesting things seen in passing for later investigation or looting, etc.), and removes any options for pre-scouting, information gathering, or additional exploration before reaching the reliquary itself.

Yes the immediate drama might be waiting at the reliquary but - and this only just now occurred to me - what's being denied is the ability for the PCs to become distracted by something else, or to distract themselves. Isn't this just another form of railroad?

As for the bit about the ability of the players to author things into the fiction - I will repeat again that the games I GM generally do not involve player fiat authorship, and in my view that this is largely a red herring as far as player agency in respect of the shared fiction is concerned.

"Is there a vessel in the room that would allow me to catch the mage's blood?" isn't "authoring things into the fiction." It's just an action declaration.

Yes, but it's also an attempt to author something into the fiction - in this case a container that wasn't initially a part of the room description (or framed scene, whatever) provided by the DM.

A better example might be this: let's say a party is in a castle and has via whatever means got itself into a combat it really can't quite handle. They've retreated into an old study on the ground floor, which the DM describes (or frames) as being musty, dusty, with two tall narrow windows big enough to let light in but not big enough for a normal person to fit through. The furniture is covered over with sheets, as if this place has somewhat been abandoned.

The enemies beat on the door, and it gives way. Foes pour in, and the party's front line prepares for a heroic last stand.

The party thief/rogue/sneak declares as an action "I search the outside wall for a secret door!". This is huge: success means some of the PCs can escape; failure means a likely TPK.

In a DM-driven game the DM is going to already know whether there's one there to find or not*. But in a player-driven game it would seem the roll for success on this action will determine whether a secret door is found...which means two things on a successful roll: 1) the thief's player just authored that secret door into the fiction, and 2) the thief's player has via this authorship just given the party an escape route they wouldn't otherwise have had, which skirts a bit too close to the Czege principle for my liking.

* - though even in a DM-driven game, if the DM realizes the pending TPK is her fault rather than the players' she might suddenly decide to stick a secret door there anyway even if there wasn't one to begin with...

Lanefan

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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!

It is actually an example of extending the Gygaxian dungeon to the whole world. This is why it is a classic 'OSR' mode of play. At least in theory, the GM simply makes up the whole world ahead of time and then the players solve it, with the GM acting as neutral referee during play. Ideally anyway. Obviously that's another 'spherical cow' but you can achieve a measure of 'skill game' with the world playing as your 'board' to put it in your terms.

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.

I would say that other PC actions are similar aren't they? I mean, you did say that dicing to find the map is identical to killing the orc, in a game-theoretical sense (and I agree). Neither is agency over the fiction, but they are equal. This is really why I give players the ability to AUTHOR fiction, it is the true unequivocal way in which they can become equal in their participation to the GM. Only then is it "everyone's game." It isn't easy to reach this conclusion, it takes a lot of analysis, but it is the endpoint, for me, in terms of RPG analysis. NOW I can talk about ways in which restricting that authorial power, or wielding it in different forms, can shape what can be done.

This is the final sense in which I am interested in your world building question.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I mean to 'play with the agency of the character'. Advocacy isn't really relevant here, although presumably a character is a vehicle for the player to express some sort of desire about what she wants to play. I would call 'actor stance' (I haven't really used these terms) to be 'playing in first person', but in my discussion first person isn't really material either. What is material is that the player is taking, within the game world and its fiction, the characteristics, the AGENCY (ability to do things in the game) of the character. This is what you mean by 'no meta-game' presumably.

As with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I find it odd that anyone would assert that players bound to character stance have the same agency WRT the fiction as one's who don't live within that limit. Beyond that though, Pemerton's point includes that a player CAN be entirely in what I call character stance and STILL exercise agency over the fiction, and that this is a common method of play. I think it is what most of us are really debating about here. You, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], et al often maintain that you take into consideration player motivations, desires, suggestions, possibly even to the level of players establishing fictional elements via making checks (IE I search for a secret door and one shows up if the search is successful) in some cases.

I think there's an unbroken continuum in a practical sense from my 'spherical cow' endless random maze where all decisions are pointless, on up through Arnesonian (poor guy gets shafted on credit too much) dungeon play, to various degrees of GM establishment of and utilization of fixed backstory and hidden positioning, on up through all the degrees of GMs cooperating with players to put the elements they want into the story, finally on up to formal scene framing (standard narrativist model) play, and into formal systems of player authorship, and finally unconstrained group authorship.

In this context I think it is reasonable to get back to the original discussion of world building (which I would generalize to most GM pre-authored backstory and setting). As you approach the Standard Narrativist Model level of player agency is there a different role for world building than there would be in say a dungeon crawl?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

"To" and "as" being operative. The times you've used this you've made statements like, "This is orthogonal." You've then not been clear what this is orthogonal to or not running in the same direction as. Correct usage requires being clear what the other thing is; "This is orthogonal to this other thing."

I thought pointing out a minor pet peeve on word usage with a Princess Bride paraphrase would have been funny. Apparently, that humor didn't parse well. My apologies to those that took the time to answer with respect despite my failed attempt at humor.

I think I'm the one who originally introduced the term into common use on EnWorld. We use it often in software engineering practice in the sense of 'two things which are not related or dependant on each other', usually in the context of a 'concern' or area which requires attention, such as a functional or non-functional requirement.

While it is true that two things are related by their orthogonality, I generally use it in a context where one of those things is understood (IE X is orthogonal to the topic under discussion, which is understood to be Y). Maybe that is sometimes not clear.

I admit to being slow when it comes to humorous references sometimes. Got the Princess Bride reference though

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Fair enough.

I guess the problem we're having is that while you're interested in that specific form of agency, not everyone is. Further, even though some less-played systems promote it by design not everyone sees it as a relevant component of the overall agency held by players in most 'mainstream' games/systems; which are what most of us play and are thus a) familiar with and b) basing our thoughts on.

Now see, THIS is a habit I find infinitely irritating! (and I will just say you personally are a very mild example and I don't mean to get all in your face about it, just pointing it out).

First of all, though we all acknowledge that most people have played and often do play D&D, the idea that all other RP experience is basically irrelevant to any discussion of RPGs and that the total sum of it all amounts to nothing but some tiny radical fringe of people who should just go away and stop bugging anyone, is not supported by any credible facts. The truth is that MOST other systems in development and play now, MANY of which have a great deal of support in places like Kickstarter and whatnot, are narrativist in many of their elements. I don't agree that this is a fringe group and I don't think trying to keep stating it as a 'fact' furthers discussion. I mean, by all means, start a thread and lets examine the actual state of the RPG industry in that light and try to establish some facts, but to use this non-factual fact as a club in other discussions with which to beat people, I'm not a fan of that!

Secondly, so what? I mean, really, what does a desire to dismiss all other points of view simply because they are less popular than yours say? I don't think you really mean to be that sort of people!

Truthfully, I'm not outraged or offended by this kind of thing, I get it, but you probably are best-served by other forms of rhetoric.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This sort of thing can easily arise out of a Gygaxian dungeon. All it needs is some immersion into character by the players and a dM who's willing to give them the time between the combats to roleplay their stories/emotions out. They don't even all have to relate to the current adventure e.g. romantic entanglements between PCs, or rivalries friendly or otherwise, or pranks, etc.

Eh, I think it is not quite the same thing. In the Arnesonian dungeon, the content ALL belongs entirely to the GM. In no case do the players establish what the game is 'about'. If the GM puts undead into the dungeon, then its about undead. If the GM puts orcs in the dungeon, then its about orcs, etc. While players can establish character agendas, "I want to find the Girdle of Giant Strength made by my ancestor Glorf the Great!" its entirely up to the GM as to when, how, where, or if such an agenda will be addressed. In fact, in the perfect ideal of sandbox dungeon play that is often espoused, for the GM to author content deliberately aimed at addressing this character's agenda is considered to be 'not kosher'.

I think its possible for some very limited elements of player-facing techniques to exist within a skill-test Arnesonian dungeon concept, but to the extent that they do, they begin to move outside that paradigm. So, for instance, it is possible for the Reaction Roll system to produce such results. The PCs encounter the orcs and they convince the orcs, via a good reaction roll, that they should join up with the characters to wipe out the hobgoblins on level 2 and split the loot. Later the thief backstabs the orc leader because he wants a bigger share and thus precipitates some specific action (IE a battle).

These are some of the elements of player agency which Gygax and Arneson wrote into their game along with certain spells and items (IE scrying and such). Still, every such element requires specific fictional positioning which may be subject to hidden elements, and/or a character resource (spell, potion, etc). Note how in OD&D there is no 'skill system', meaning there isn't an established always available technique for doing this kind of thing, except 'listen rolls' and 'find secret doors', and dwarf's ability to sense slopes and such.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So the Framing of a scene draws on the Backstory....known to the players...in order to set up some kind of conflict or situation that demands that they act. In that sense, Framing is the establishment of factors that dictate the players' options. Do you think that's accurate?

Framing backstory establishes factors which draw a scene that addresses player concerns and 'gets to the action'.

To me, I think this can also be the purpose of little b backstory, where perhaps the players don't know. So to use the bribe-ability of guards as an example....is it really that different to openly Frame a scene and explain that guards cannot be bribed, than it is to not state that openly and let the players discover it only through attempts to bribe or to find out if it's possible?

Well, there are a couple of things to point out here. First it REALLY depends on the agenda of the players. Secondly the bribeability of the guards appears to be SECRET. Think of a wall in a dungeon, you can see it, you can touch it, you know all about what it is. The wall cuts off motion in a certain direction in the dungeon, and the unbribeable guard cuts off certain actions too, but without telegraphing that to the players. This may or may not be an issue depending on the first point, agenda.

Both limit what is available to the player. The only real distinction to me is that in the second example, the player "wastes a turn" finding out the guards can't be bribed. Is that the point of concern? Doesn't the GM's Framing potentially have just as much impact that secret backstory may have on action declaration? Aren't the players prevented from having their characters bribe the guards either way? So one limit on agency happens up front and openly, and the other is only discovered through play....would that be the primary difference?

I think you need to understand Story Now more deeply. The scene is framed IN RESPECT TO THE PLAYER'S AGENDA, so if the players decide that they wish to engage in bribery and other kinds of skullduggery then unbribeable guards may well be an infringement on their agenda and it simply wouldn't be established as such in a Story Now player-centered game, doing so would be a mistake. Guards would be established, probably, in order to present a CHALLENGE to the characters such that the players must address the questions at hand, which is "we're shady guys who bribe people" (or maybe not, maybe your character is a Paladin and the question is about sticking to your principles regardless of the cost and NOT bribing the guards, then the GM might frame a SOLICITATION of a bribe). Notice how pre-established backstory would work against this kind of agenda. It might be fine to call the guards 'unbribeable' if this suites the framing and leads to the right conflict, but you won't know until you get there. This is why its Story Now. Walls and guards and such ONLY APPEAR when they serve the agenda of the game, and then they have the characteristics that are requisite of them (otherwise they might simply appear as simple props).

In this sense, couldn't it almost be argued that player agency is even more limited by Framing? Because depending on how the GM Frames things, the players may not even consider certain actions, whether or not they have a chance to succeed.

Player agency probably always IS limited by framing. This is the PURPOSE of framing. Without any limits there's no challenge to overcome, no conflict, no tension, no stakes, nothing. Nobody is arguing that there are no limits on player agency (at least with respect to what the characters can do, in a group-authored game the player might not ACTUALLY be limited formally except by the need to cooperate with the other players to make a good game). What is argued is that the game should always address the player's AGENDA.

If a player wishes to have a character who's concept is "My father always said I wasn't good enough, so I'm going to rule the world in order to prove him wrong!" then the focus of things which that player does with that character, his character's narrative, is going to be about that need, that drive, the consequences of it, the nature of it, how it impacts and shapes his character, the world, etc. Maybe he spends his time working towards world domination and the challenges are the obvious obstacles to that. Maybe some of it, or most of it even, is about the moral cost of such an undertaking. How much does he have to compromise himself as a human being in order to achieve his goal? It might be about the ultimate hollowness of such an achievement and his growth and realization that it is empty and won't make him happy. There's plenty of possibilities even within a fairly narrow character definition. How this character interacts with the other characters, the nature of the milieu, etc. may all influence exactly what ends up being addressed. Standard Narrativist concepts just imply that it WILL be the central focus of that character's narrative.

To apply this more specifically to Permerton's concern about player authorship of fiction through action declaration....the Framing certainly seems to remove the ability of the players to author things into the fiction. Anything that contradicts the GM's framing is off the table. Which is fine....I think most people would accept this with no question....but I just don't see it as being all that different.

Just some thoughts about it all.....generally, my idea of player agency is different than the specific use Permerton has assigned to it in regard to authorship ability....but I still see limitations however you look at it.

Again, limitations aren't really the issue. The issue is what is the agenda of the game? When [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] talks about "moves which reveal the GM's secret backstory" what that really says is "the GM introduces elements of the story that address the GM's agenda." This is, in Story Now terms, simply definitional, as the player's agenda is established dynamically by engaging with the framing of the scenes, character backstory, etc. When the GM dictates backstory for purposes that are other than player agenda, that reduces player agency over the narrative, because it addresses GM agency over the narrative and thus GM agenda. Maybe the two are in harmony sometimes and the player and the GM both get what they want out of the scene. I think this usually happens to some degree in all but dysfunctional cases. The point is, frames always create limitations, but in a player-centered game the players are the center and the limitations are there to further their agenda.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is an even worse paraphrase that adds even more confusion to the bits we've managed to sort out. This definition, as written, applies to many styles of DM0-facing games if taken at face value. For this to mean what @pemerton means, there's a huge host of unspoken assumptions that have to go along with it.

It seemed clear to me

Again, not a very good comparision because the assumptions of play between your spherical cow and the following declaration do not align. The problem here isn't the spherical cow and what that entails in limited choice (mazes automatically limit choices) but that the assumptions of play are not aligned.

Sure, its not coherent with the spherical cow, the only point here was the difference between the two in respect of what the fiction addresses. Its a very bare bones comparison, and that was the point.

Secondly, that declaration is treading close to the Czege Principle of the player writing their own solution to their own problems (I want to find X, so I'll declare Y action that will directly lead to me finding X. Even if there's a mechanical check on this declaration, a success leads to immediate satisfaction of the player defined objectives.)

Sure sure, its a simplistic example. Remember, the 'Czege Principle' is not some sort of absolute thing. It is less a factor to the degree that the result of the player's declaration produces an indirect or incremental move in the direction of meeting their objective. In other words, it would be poor Story Now to produce the secret door to the Yuan Ti temple and entirely address the character's desire. It would be less poor to have it lead to a chamber which contained a map that guided the party to another location. That location in turn would most likely be a step in the direction of the goal, etc. I don't think this is really very relevant to the point I was making, which was about who was in charge of the direction and content of the fiction. In the endless maze it is clearly the GM, entirely. When the player can declare an action to reveal an element of the scene that addresses his agenda, then he's achieved some control over the narrative.