What is *worldbuilding* for?

[AbdulAlhazred]

So what happens if the player doesn't have an agenda, or a pre-set idea of what story she wants to play through? What if she'd rather let her 'agenda' build itself out of what happens during the run of play? Or, in a broader sense, what happens if she wants to react to what the DM gives her to work with rather than having the DM react to what she gives them?
This has been one of my questions also, but I can see ways both friendly (resolve them consecutively rather than concurrently) and infriendly (a little PvP, anyone?) to get around the issue.

It isn't a super uncommon type of player, the one who doesn't evince a desire for any course of action, except maybe tactically. I think its also not so prevalent a behavior when the game is organized around the player's and their PCs story/drama. Players tend to become a bunch more proactive in that situation. Now, there are tried and true ways for a GM to poke. "Oh, why doesn't your character want to drink with the dwarves?" "How do you feel about the greedy banker?" etc. Even that MIGHT not work in a few hard cases, but then unless the player is playing solo (a pretty odd idea for that type of player) then they at least have the agenda of "be a good party member" or something along those lines. Its not much, but you can live with one or two freeloaders if you have to.

The story now might be something as simple as dealing with a tribe of raiding orcs; but in the course of doing so we've learned the local Baron is corrupt. Dealing with him and all his guards and advisers is way outside our pay grade at the moment, and as we don't know who else we can trust with this knowledge we-as-PCs (and as players) just file it away for a later time when we think we can handle what he might throw at us.

It's called player-side long range planning.

I guess the question is what is the significance of those two things? If the players are just having their characters drift around in the sandbox and react to what they find, then this is a normal sort of play. If its Story Now, then clearly the orcs are what they WANT to be doing, maybe the Baron is a plot hook left for getting to another PC's agenda later in the adventure.

And where another aspect of player agency - that of choosing what to do - is denied as a trade-off.

I don't really see that. The WHOLE GAME is the player choosing what to do. They choose the agenda, and they choose how to react to the framing created by the GM in accordance with that. I don't think any agency is given up, except the agency of letting someone else determine what elements go into the story.

That's a bit surprising, in that it can happen so easily particularly if players are independently coming up with their own intended story-lines. Could be something as simple as, in say a court-intrigue game, one player-as-PC setting her goal as marriage to the Duke and another setting her goal as the overthrow and death of this same Duke.

Lanefan

I am jealous of whatever GM has players that came up with those two backstories! What an awesome combination. I'd try to cast them as fast friends. One's family was cast down by the Duke, and the other falls for him. Maybe they're even sisters!

 

[Campbell]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]

I do not think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is speaking about your game specifically in his criticism of GM Driven play unless you run a game that is very close to the Dragonlance/Ravenloft Modules or Vampire - The Masquerade, AD&D 2e and 5e as explicitly described by their GMing texts. There is no way to address your individual game unless we know more about the play environment, social layer, and play procedures actually used at the table. The only way to learn more about the play procedures in use is for you to say what they are?

• Do you plan out story and character arcs?
• Do you adjudicate things based on what you would like to have happen?
• Do you expect players to follow your lead?
• Do you expect players to appreciate your world design for its own sake?
• Do you follow the fiction wherever it might lead?
• Do you reward skilled fictional positioning?
• Does the social environment include an expectation of getting back on track to the GM's story?
• Does everyone get the same rewards even if some players play passively while others actively contribute?
• Do you design scenarios or plots?
• Can players address a hook as they see fit or only in preapproved ways designed by you?

I do not mean to badger the witness here. I do think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s analysis can sometimes exclude other ways to play that are not either Sorcerer or 5e as described by the text of the DMG. The criticisms that I have personally for the current orthodoxy does not apply to sandbox games like early RuneQuest, Godbound, Stars Without Number or B/X D&D run according to their text. Those games are my second favorite sort of game to be a player in. I also have my own criticisms about intent based resolution systems.

One of the larger points of this thread I think is that it is useful to question the orthodoxy and take a critical look at why we do the things we do. It's also useful to see the dominant modes of play is a way to play role playing games and not the way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've said many times that I don't think it will be my cup of tea, but that I'd like to try it someday to be sure.

Careful, we'll take you up on it. We might all end up agreeing on everything! EnWorld would shrink by half!

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]

I'm not he but just for kicks I ought to roll and see if I can hit any of these...

Do you plan out story and character arcs?

Story arcs yes, character arcs no; and in full knowledge that any story arc I plan might not survive once the puck gets dropped

Do you adjudicate things based on what you would like to have happen?

Usually no.

Do you expect players to follow your lead?

Sometimes yes, particularly if they're in some sort of hard AP; other times no.

Do you expect players to appreciate your world design for its own sake?

It's nice when they do, but not expected or demanded.

Do you follow the fiction wherever it might lead?

Depends where it's leading. If it's leading to something I flat-out don't want to run (e.g. some long-winded exercise in game-world economics) I'll make this clear. But I'm ready willing and able to hit whatever curveballs the players throw at me in terms of what they decide to do next.

Do you reward skilled fictional positioning?

I've no idea, as I don't know what you mean by this.

Does the social environment include an expectation of getting back on track to the GM's story?

Sometimes. Then again, sometimes they think the "GM's story" is one thing where in fact it was trying to be something else entirely. Couple that with my being able to sometimes take their ideas and build them in to my story (without them even realizing it, on occasion), or make them my story, and while there's a frequent expectation of getting back on track with the story it may or may not be entirely my story they want to get back on to.

Does everyone get the same rewards even if some players play passively while others actively contribute?

For xp, no; if you do nothing you get nothing. For treasure, usually yes.

Do you design scenarios or plots?

Yes to both, as one (scenarios) is a natural outgrowth of DMing the other (plots).

Can players address a hook as they see fit or only in preapproved ways designed by you?

In most cases any way they see fit, including ignoring it either wilfully or unintentionally. Sometimes, though, they don't have much choice - again something that happens mostly in hard APs where the PCs really do get led by the nose for a while.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Careful, we'll take you up on it. We might all end up agreeing on everything!

Beer.

It's all you need.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Beer.

It's all you need.

Why, its a universal language! Makes English optional!

We used to have a D&D campaign where you had to take a drink every time you took damage. It kinda died horribly pretty quickly...

 

[Lanefan]

Why, its a universal language! Makes English optional!

We used to have a D&D campaign where you had to take a drink every time you took damage. It kinda died horribly pretty quickly...

I can't remember the last time I DMed a completely sober game where neither I nor the players touched a drop. I'm assuming it's happened at least once...

 

[Maxperson]

• Do you plan out story and character arcs?

• 
  
  No.
  
  

  [*]Do you adjudicate things based on what you would like to have happen?

  
  No.
  
  

  [*]Do you expect players to follow your lead?

  
  Not as a DM, no. As a player, I'll at least try to talk them into things.
  
  

  [*]Do you expect players to appreciate your world design for its own sake?

  
  No.
  
  

  [*]Do you follow the fiction wherever it might lead?
  [*]Do you reward skilled fictional positioning?

  
  I'm not entirely sure what you mean by these. If you could explain them a bit better I'd be happy to answer those questions.
  
  

  [*]Does the social environment include an expectation of getting back on track to the GM's story?

  
  No.
  
  

  [*]Does everyone get the same rewards even if some players play passively while others actively contribute?

  
  I don't have any passive players.
  
  

  [*]Do you design scenarios or plots?

  
  I'll make dungeons, castles, etc. in response to the players. If they are searching out relics and find out that one is in the dungeon of mantha, I'll make the dungeon of mantha. I don't create the ways to succeed, though. How they go about accomplishing their goals is up to them. If they decide at the beginning, half way, or wherever that they want to go and do something else, that's what happens.
  
  

  [*]Can players address a hook as they see fit or only in preapproved ways designed by you?

  
  As they see fit, including ignoring it completely.
  
  

  One of the larger points of this thread I think is that it is useful to question the orthodoxy and take a critical look at why we do the things we do. It's also useful to see the dominant modes of play is a way to play role playing games and not the way.

  
  Edit: forgot to reply to this one.
  
  I don't think anyone here thinks that there are only the traditional ways to play the game. Most of us(all I think) debating with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] aren't saying that his way is wrong or bad, but rather are disagreeing with his mischaracterizations of our playstyle(s).

 

[pemerton]

I do think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s analysis can sometimes exclude other ways to play that are not either Sorcerer or 5e as described by the text of the DMG. The criticisms that I have personally for the current orthodoxy does not apply to sandbox games like early RuneQuest, Godbound, Stars Without Number or B/X D&D run according to their text. Those games are my second favorite sort of game to be a player in.

In my OP I tried to distinguish classic D&D dungeoncrawling (so at least the B in B/X) (i) from (what I labelled) more contemporary play, and (ii) from sandboxing more generally.

I've already posted at length, upthread, about features of non-dungeon sandboxing that (I believe) can tend to reduce player agency. The main one is the lack of clear parameters around what might be "hidden", unrevealed backstory - whereas the austere dungeon environment, together with established conventions/tropes (like pit traps, rotating rooms, etc), set such parameters in dungeoneering play.

As I've mentioned several times in the thread, I am currently running a Classic Traveller game. Some parts of that game have a clear resolution structure (interstellar travel, dealing with bureaucrats) that I think support player agency. The only mechanic I've encountered so far that was really unsatisfactory was the system for travelling in the on-world "wilderness" - it has no finality of resolution and really depended rather heavily on the sort of GM manipulation that I dislike.

I think non-dungeon sandboxing can tend to have quite a bit of that. Or, if the only resolution system that yields finality is combat, then combat can become very frequent! Which again makes sense in a dungeon but can hurt the feel of a bigger sandbox. (My Traveller game has been happily combat-light - happily in the sense that it is not a verisimilitude-threatening bloodbath given the broadly civilian contexts the PCs have been operating in.)

I haven't got enough experience with early RQ played in sandbox but non-dungeon style to know how it might compare to, or improve upon, Traveller in this respect.

 

[Maxperson]

In my OP I tried to distinguish classic D&D dungeoncrawling (so at least the B in B/X) (i) from (what I labelled) more contemporary play, and (ii) from sandboxing more generally.

I've already posted at length, upthread, about features of non-dungeon sandboxing that (I believe) can tend to reduce player agency. The main one is the lack of clear parameters around what might be "hidden", unrevealed backstory - whereas the austere dungeon environment, together with established conventions/tropes (like pit traps, rotating rooms, etc), set such parameters in dungeoneering play.

As I've mentioned several times in the thread, I am currently running a Classic Traveller game. Some parts of that game have a clear resolution structure (interstellar travel, dealing with bureaucrats) that I think support player agency. The only mechanic I've encountered so far that was really unsatisfactory was the system for travelling in the on-world "wilderness" - it has no finality of resolution and really depended rather heavily on the sort of GM manipulation that I dislike.

I think non-dungeon sandboxing can tend to have quite a bit of that. Or, if the only resolution system that yields finality is combat, then combat can become very frequent! Which again makes sense in a dungeon but can hurt the feel of a bigger sandbox. (My Traveller game has been happily combat-light - happily in the sense that it is not a verisimilitude-threatening bloodbath given the broadly civilian contexts the PCs have been operating in.)

I haven't got enough experience with early RQ played in sandbox but non-dungeon style to know how it might compare to, or improve upon, Traveller in this respect.

So vastly increasing the players choices further limits agency. I disagree with that. In a sandbox game I can choose to become king and work towards my goal. In a sandbox game I can choose to rule the world, or rob the houses of the wealthy, leaving a 6 sided die behind as my calling card, or go from town to town looking for opportunities to save them from evil, or a huge number of other choices that aren't available in dungeon crawls. And I can also choose to dungeon crawl. Dungeon crawl games = highly limited choices in how the players can drive the game. Sandbox = vastly greater number of choices in how the players can drive the game.