What is *worldbuilding* for?

[billd91]

I don't know it to be dishonest - I'm sincerely asserting it.

This is all true, but has no bearing on my remark to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].

Equally true. And if you want to find a secret door you can't do it wihout a Search (or other appropriate) check. But again, that has no bearing on my remark to Lanefan.

The discussion between Lanefan and me is not about whether or not a Perception check is necessary to find a secret door. It's about whether or not there should be an additional, mediating step in action resolution, namely, the GM secretly deciding (by way of pre-authorship, or rolling a die, or whatever) whether or not a secret door "exists" to be found. That is what I am calling a railroad.

If the GM's preauthorship was about whether or not an orc will be killed in a combat, I think that nearly every ENworld poster would recognise it as a railroad (and the debate would turn into one about whether or not railroading, by way of fudging to keep NPCs alive, is a good or bad thing). I am asserting the same thing about searching for a secret door.

I recognise that not everyone agrees that the secret door case is a railroad. That's fine - it wouldn't be the only time people have had different aesthetic judgements. But the fact that others have different preferences doesn't change mine!

It does indicate that you have a highly idiosyncratic definition of railroad. If your definition of a railroad includes the fact that there's an element in the setting that exists independent of the players having their PCs actually interact with it, I'm not sure I can trust your ability to communicate this and other concepts in a manner where there's any form of mutual understanding.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't know it to be dishonest - I'm sincerely asserting it.

This is all true, but has no bearing on my remark to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].

Equally true. And if you want to find a secret door you can't do it wihout a Search (or other appropriate) check. But again, that has no bearing on my remark to Lanefan.

The discussion between Lanefan and me is not about whether or not a Perception check is necessary to find a secret door. It's about whether or not there should be an additional, mediating step in action resolution, namely, the GM secretly deciding (by way of pre-authorship, or rolling a die, or whatever) whether or not a secret door "exists" to be found. That is what I am calling a railroad.

If the GM's preauthorship was about whether or not an orc will be killed in a combat, I think that nearly every ENworld poster would recognise it as a railroad (and the debate would turn into one about whether or not railroading, by way of fudging to keep NPCs alive, is a good or bad thing). I am asserting the same thing about searching for a secret door.

I recognise that not everyone agrees that the secret door case is a railroad. That's fine - it wouldn't be the only time people have had different aesthetic judgements. But the fact that others have different preferences doesn't change mine!

A statement about what a railroad is is not a preference.

And we are all very well versed that you are rather fixated on your own idea of how a game should be run that it is detrimental because, as you just demonstrated, you cannot differentiate between a personal preference and an absolute statement on what makes a game.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure how else to put this. If the check succeeds, the players goal for his/her PC is realised. If the aura-reading succeeds, the feather has a trait that is suitable for dealing with a balrog (from memory, I think the PC was looking for Resistant to Fire). If the scavenging check in the tower succeeds, the PC finds the mace he is searching for. If the Circles check succeeds, the PC meets up with a NPC of the nature s/he was looking for.

The difference from asking the GM "Do I have any friends/contacts? Who are they?" or "What's around the corner?" or "Are there any interesting trinkets for sale?" is obvious.

I'm not sure how else to put this. If the check succeeds, you make up stuff related to the goal. If the players are making up details for the results of their own rolls, you are not needed as DM. If they are not, they are declaring actions in order to get you to make up stuff.

 

[pemerton]

A statement about what a railroad is is not a preference.

It's not solely preference, in the sense that railroad isn't a synonym for bad game or game I didn't enjoy.

But preferences feed into judgements about railroading.

It does indicate that you have a highly idiosyncratic definition of railroad. If your definition of a railroad includes the fact that there's an element in the setting that exists independent of the players having their PCs actually interact with it, I'm not sure I can trust your ability to communicate this and other concepts in a manner where there's any form of mutual understanding.

I've bolded your central claim. It's not accurate. I didn't refer to such elements. These are a common part of framing.

I referred to the GM using secretly-established setting elements to determine the outcome of a declared action. This is not wildly idiosyncratic, either - after all, a whole school of RPG designers (Vincent Baker, Paul Czege, Ron Edwards, Christopher Kubasik, etc) desgined their games to avoid railroading in more-or-less the sense that I am using the notion.

And I don't think that the usage is that hard to understand: just consider how the GM goes about resolving the action declaration. If it involves setting a DC and the player making a roll (as per combat) - or whatever the equivalent is in some other system - then it is not what I am calling railroading. If it is the GM looking up some unrevealed aspect of the fictional situation that s/he established in advance - like a dungeon key that records whether or not a secret door is present; or a city description that tells us whether or not guards take bribes - then it is what I'm objecting to.

There are marginal cases - an invisible foe on the battlefield; the example skill challenge in the 4e DMG, where the duke doesn't take kindly to attempts at intimidation - and I posted about where I think the boundaries lie a long way upthread.

 

[pemerton]

you are rather fixated on your own idea of how a game should be run

Only in response to a series of posters keep asserting that either (i) it is impossible or (ii) it is no different from a GM-worldbulding-heavy approach. (Some even assert both, which seems oddly contradictory.)

 

[happyhermit]

Oh hey, you're still here and dissecting my posts, did you miss this?;

Strange question, didn't you say you used them in D&D, a game that assumes GM-worldbuilding to some degree? I have seen them used in many games, mostly D&D, though obviously not by name. If you mean a game that assumes some degree of GM-worldbuilding by default and includes "kickers" by default then the game that introduced the formalized concept, "Sorcerer" seems a good enough example.

Does this mean you can agree with the rest of the post? Because you mentioned kickers as a way to differentiate between stories the GM tells in a game with or without GM worldbuilding, it doesn't really do this because they can be used in either, but it still only addresses the singular example I used. By the definition you provided there are lots of other examples of GMs telling stories in a no-myth game.

Are you actually arguing that using kickers in a game with some degree of GM-worldbuilding is impossible? It isn't clear.

Sorcerer is clearly not a game that involves GM worldbuilding of the sort described in the OP of this thread.

I don't see any sort of definition of GM-worldbuilding in the OP, but I remember now that you are using some very atypical and specific definitions. IIRC by "Gm-worldbuilding", you aren't referring to all Gm-worldbuilding or even all pre-game Gm-worldbuilding, but a specific subset of that. Sorcerer probably still meets that highly customized definition (which is essentially reverse engineered so that games like it don't fit the bill, which is fine but it really would be better to use a different term than try to co-opt an existing one), but I was referring to the original game and how it was run, not how it's viewed 10-20 years later. The designer and community have a different perspective on it now, games like it have led to some different understandings.

Thining of the kicker as "backstory", or as something that the GM uses to help drive the narrative, is (I think) missing some of the point.
...

Sure, that's why I didn't say "It's just backstory", I said "(often a sort of backstory)". Because that's often what it is, a very specific form of "backstory". Then I posted a quote and thread by the guy who coined the term where he is specifically trying to explain what it is. It's either funny or sad that I make about as neutral as possible of a post on an aspect of your favoured playstyle and you say "You are missing the point" and yet you seem to continually make terribly unrepresentative posts about other playstyles and don't think you are "missing the point" at all.

 

[eayres33]

@Ovinomancer

I don’t have the spare time to look up those 7 points (and the 8, 9 caveat extension), but here is what I’ve seen in terms of advocacy in the last few pages.

1) It’s an activity from which some derive enjoyment as a stand-alone craft.

2) It aids the cause of granular interaction with the gamestate so of-kind decision-points can be navigated for a certain player archetype.

3) It aids extrapolation/inference for GMs whose games hew to a process-sim, hexcrawl ethos (who typically hack the rules a bit to aid this); related to 2. Also includes adjudication by way of secret (perhaps unknowable) backstory.

4) It aids the passive setting/metaplot consumption/wonderment experience for certain player archetypes.

5) It aids extrapolation/inference for GMs whose games hew to a hybrid of storyteller: process-sim ethos.

6) Related to 4 and 5 above, it (along with resolution mechanics that are opaque and/or require heavy GM mediation) allows a GM to more easily exert covert Force (Illusionism) for players of persuasion (4); including adjudication by secret, unknowable backstory which may or may not exist (eg classic GM blocks against classic PC power plays).

7) It ensures GMs will be interested in any content that is a fundamental part of play (“the GM is supposed to have fun too”).

8) It fascilitates GMs in constraining the pace of play toward a granularly-intensive, more methodical (therefore slower) bent.

I think that covers it.

I'm still reading this thread but will call this out, you don't have the time to read through the points that you created, really, if they were good enough for us to all read and remember and comment on, maybe you should have taken the time to remember them. That is just lazy and for the many people that have commented on your points or quoted them you owe them more than that. I think you and the OP are wrong on most of your points and hope to comment further when I get up to speed, but that is a lazy low blow you are trying to get away wit.

 

[Sadras]

And if you want to find a secret door you can't do it without a Search (or other appropriate) check.

The discussion between Lanefan and me is not about whether or not a Perception check is necessary to find a secret door. It's about whether or not there should be an additional, mediating step in action resolution, namely, the GM secretly deciding (by way of pre-authorship, or rolling a die, or whatever) whether or not a secret door "exists" to be found. That is what I am calling a railroad.

If the GM's preauthorship was about whether or not an orc will be killed in a combat, I think that nearly every ENworld poster would recognise it as a railroad (and the debate would turn into one about whether or not railroading, by way of fudging to keep NPCs alive, is a good or bad thing). I am asserting the same thing about searching for a secret door.

and

Yes. The most classic example in the history of RPGing would be "I try and kill the orc."

There is also a classic term to describe a game in which the players have to work out the GM-authored solution: it's called a railroad!

You seemed to have missed a massive step.
You talk about the characters searching for a secret door. You NEVER refer to the character searching for an orc. The objects in both those situations are door and orc respectively. Your example jumps straight into the combat with the orc i.e. How we engage with the object once it is present. Why would you purposefully use such a disingenuous comparative example?

Are ALL your combat encounters introduced only on a failed roll?
Based on your play-examples, the answer would be a resounding no. So given your definition of a railroad (based on your above posts) - I guess we all railroad.

In conclusion - No Myth Story Now and Worldbuilding Games are both railroads according to your definition.

@Lanefan, @shidaku and @happyhermit I wouldn't take offense.

 

[billd91]

It's not solely preference, in the sense that railroad isn't a synonym for bad game or game I didn't enjoy.

But preferences feed into judgements about railroading.

I've bolded your central claim. It's not accurate. I didn't refer to such elements. These are a common part of framing.

I referred to the GM using secretly-established setting elements to determine the outcome of a declared action. This is not wildly idiosyncratic, either - after all, a whole school of RPG designers (Vincent Baker, Paul Czege, Ron Edwards, Christopher Kubasik, etc) desgined their games to avoid railroading in more-or-less the sense that I am using the notion.

And I don't think that the usage is that hard to understand: just consider how the GM goes about resolving the action declaration. If it involves setting a DC and the player making a roll (as per combat) - or whatever the equivalent is in some other system - then it is not what I am calling railroading. If it is the GM looking up some unrevealed aspect of the fictional situation that s/he established in advance - like a dungeon key that records whether or not a secret door is present; or a city description that tells us whether or not guards take bribes - then it is what I'm objecting to.

You may object to it as a style of play, but there's no connection between that and the definition of railroad. If the presence (or absence) of the secret door is recorded and independent of either the GM's or the player's desires for it to be there at the time and the GM isn't goading the players one way or the other, how can its presence (or absence) possibly limit the choices of the players? They can elect to search for it or not as absolutely freely as the players in your preferred style of game. The fact that they don't get to "author" that one is present by declaring a search attempt and successfully rolling whatever DC you as GM set for it is no indication that they've been railroaded by anybody (or anything as in the case of an adventure text).

Lack of opportunity to author particular details is not a railroad.

 

[Simon T. Vesper]

...

But most contemporary D&D isn't played in the spirit of classic D&D: the players aren't trying to map a maze; when it comes to searching, perception and the like there is often an emphasis on PC skills (perception checks) rather than player game moves; there is no clear win condition like there used to be (ie getting the gold and thereby accruing XP).

In the classic game, alignment (and related aspects of character motivation) become components in, and establish the parameters of, the puzzle: if I find a prisoner in the dungeon, should I be rescuing her/him (after all, my PC is lawful and so I might suffer a GM-imposed penalty if I leave a helpless person behind)? Or is s/he really a succubus or medusa in disguise, trying to take advantage of my lawful foibles? ...


... in most contemporary play, character motivations (and alignment etc) aren't treated purely instrumentally in that waym as puzzle components and parameters. I'm expected to develop my character, and to care about his/her motivations, for their own sake. This is part of the standard picture of what it is to be a good RPGer.

So, given these difference between typical contemporary play and "classic" play, what is world building for?

...

This may have already been addressed ~ there being 2,048 posts in the past three months ~ and if it has, my apologies for adding to the noise.

My take is a bit different.

The contemporary take on the game is... well, I don't want to say 'misguided,' but I'm struggling to find a less controversial way to put it.

Yes, players aren't necessarily playing for the sole purpose of exploring a dungeon. No, there isn't a clear win condition like there used to be. I agree with these things because they are self-evident in nearly all versions of the game. Where I diverge is the view that players are "expected to develop" their characters, in terms of motivation, personality, likes/dislikes, etc.

In other words, I understand the contemporary view to be that we're playing a story-telling game and the players are expected to perform as actors, adopting the role of their character's personality, as though on a stage or something.

I don't think this is the purpose of the game. The purpose is to adopt a role ~ typically one that can be summed up in a few words, like "elven wizard," or "deposed dwarven noble" ~ to identify goals for one's self and one's adventuring party, and then to try and achieve those goals in the context of the game's setting (with the DM serving as both arbiter and adversary). Role-playing in the sense of acting, character development and identification with your character are things that happen naturally as a byproduct of being human; and they are a compelling draw to the game because of how that identification makes us feel when we take risks and either succeed or fail; but the purpose of the game is to challenge ourselves and take those risks in the first place.

In that context, world-building provides the DM with a pool of resources to draw upon in order to present an engaging and challenging environment to the players.