What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Tony Vargas]

So this playstyle only really works for games specifically designed for it... that's interesting.

As is often the case, rules systems are variously accomodating to and supportive of different playstyles.

Also what constitutes 'supports' or working in certain systems varies widely. Sometimes 'support' seems to mean 'RAW does not prevent you from playing in this style,' other it seems closer to 'you are free to change the game to accommodate your style,' or, on the other extreme 'support' can seem require 'naturally plays in this style,' 'rewards play in this style more than others' or 'forces you to play in this style.'

 

[darkbard]

That is a limit on player agency... If I know Bob's character sucks at stealth and I want to shape the story so that he can't sneak up easily, I use the hard DC. The only way it's not would be in a system like [MENTION=9200]Hawkeye[/MENTION] described Dungeon World to be... a set DC for all actions and only your attributes and abilities modify it.

As to your example about the Orc's AC... Let me pose this question, is choosing to stick a red dragon the characters only have a slim chance to beat at 1st level into an adventure... limiting their agency as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] describes it?

In my Story Now 4E gaming, all DCs (including opponent defenses, HPs, etc.) and die rolls are above board. Players know the stakes before they make the roll, so there is no GM manipulation to shape outcomes unbeknownst to the players. Player agency is maintained through the transparency of the process. Players can also choose to spend PC resources (Action Points, racial, class, or other powers, etc.) to meet more difficult challenges (particularly butnot exclusively in the context of skill challenges). Your example of choosing a hard DC because Bob's character sucks at Stealth is not principled GMing! And it's certainly not "being a fan of the PCs," another maxim of Story Now gaming (see the recent discussion about this somewhere in one of these threads).

As to your question about the red dragon: I still think you don't understand how Story Now gaming works. The GM frames scenes in response to player cues (stated goals, character builds and backstory, etc.) and/or as the response to failed outcomes of declared actions. There is no "choosing to stick a red dragon the characters only have a slim chance to beat at 1st level into an adventure" because there is no adventure; there is only the story ... now. If the players have indicated their desire to meet such a dragon in some fashion, then that does not circumscribe their agency. If the GM frames the PCs into a meeting with such a dragon as the outcome of some failed check, (1) the GM is obliged to build off player cues, so they must have indicated a desire to encounter such a dragon for it to be salient, (2) the stakes would have been set prior to resolution, so if they fail the roll, they get what they bargain for, (3) red dragons can be made to be level appropriate foes even for first level characters in 4E, and (4) why would you presume such an encounter would be combat, and fight-to-the-death combat at that? More likely, such an outcome of some failed action would be the initiation of a skill challenge, perhaps to escape a threatening red dragon.

 

[Imaro]

In my Story Now 4E gaming, all DCs (including opponent defenses, HPs, etc.) and die rolls are above board. Players know the stakes before they make the roll, so there is no GM manipulation to shape outcomes unbeknownst to the players. Player agency is maintained through the transparency of the process. Players can also choose to spend PC resources (Action Points, racial, class, or other powers, etc.) to meet more difficult challenges (particularly butnot exclusively in the context of skill challenges). Your example of choosing a hard DC because Bob's character sucks at Stealth is not principled GMing! And it's certainly not "being a fan of the PCs," another maxim of Story Now gaming (see the recent discussion about this somewhere in one of these threads).

You're addressing the specific example and not the general point. Irregardless of why the DM would/could manipulate the DC's... It is still a limiter on player agency because determining the DC is DM whim. Even if you tell the PC's what the DC is it still is determined (and thus their chance of success) by you. Like I said earlier DW is an example of a game where this is truly mitigated but in 4e that's not the case. In the same way secret backstory can limit the agency of players so can subjective DC's. It doesn't have to be a purposeful manipulation... Unless you are being transparent with how you come to choose your DC's, your players are unaware of the conscious and subconscious biases that lead to choosing one DC vs. another. That is a limiter on agency and is an unknown in the same way that secret backstory is unknown.

As to your question about the red dragon: I still think you don't understand how Story Now gaming works. The GM frames scenes in response to player cues (stated goals, character builds and backstory, etc.) and/or as the response to failed outcomes of declared actions. There is no "choosing to stick a red dragon the characters only have a slim chance to beat at 1st level into an adventure" because there is no adventure; there is only the story ... now. If the players have indicated their desire to meet such a dragon in some fashion, then that does not circumscribe their agency. If the GM frames the PCs into a meeting with such a dragon as the outcome of some failed check, (1) the GM is obliged to build off player cues, so they must have indicated a desire to encounter such a dragon for it to be salient, (2) the stakes would have been set prior to resolution, so if they fail the roll, they get what they bargain for, (3) red dragons can be made to be level appropriate foes even for first level characters in 4E, and (4) why would you presume such an encounter would be combat, and fight-to-the-death combat at that? More likely, such an outcome of some failed action would be the initiation of a skill challenge, perhaps to escape a threatening red dragon.

Wait what? Unless the players can now frame their own adversaries, which I haven't seen an example of so far how is this remotely true? [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has chosen the adversaries that his players have faced in the "story" as far as I can tell and a red dragon could easily be framed as opposition to numerous goals. This isn't really making any sense. unless you are now saying that nothing is allowed to be created without the players "ok" in Stoiry Now gaming... is that the case?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Which terms? What "long standing definitions"? Where are these found? What makes you think you've got better cognitive access to them than I do?

And following on from these questions . . .

According to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], the concept of "player agency" was invented at The Forge and means more-or-less what I use it to mean. I don't have my own independent recollection of the use of the term at The Forge - I'm more familiar with their notion of "protagonism", which has a similar (but maybe not identical) meaning.

I've just gone to check The Forge Provisional Glossary, and found that it generally uses the word "control" rather than "agency" - but it defines force as

The Technique of control over characters' thematically-significant decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. When Force is applied in a manner which disrupts the Social Contract, the result is Railroading.​

No definition is offered of "thematically-significant decision", but "theme" is defined as

The point, message, or key emotional conclusion perceived by an audience member, about a fictional series of events.​

Now you insist that Agency is just the players being able to control the actions of their PCs. I don't disagree with your description as a description - it entails that when there is force, players lack agency, and that seems right. (We could quibble over whether "decision" and "action" co-refer, but I'm not going to.)

All the action consists in the following: what does it mean for a player to control the actions of his/her PC? Or for another participant (such as the GM) to exercise control over those?

My own view - which is not an expression of a semantic opinion, but an expression of a preference for play - is that if a player's declared action cannot succeed, because of an unrevealed decision by the GM about the setting/backstory, then the player does not have control over his/her PC's actions. The GM has, on that occasion of play, exercised control.

The previous paragraph states a real view - that is, an opinion that I really have. You have a different view, reflecting different RPGing preferences - fine! But that doesn't stop me having, and stating, my view, using English words to express it.

I have some further views, too. If an action declaration doesn't pertain to anything of thematic/dramatic significance, and puts nothing at stake, then sometimes I think it is appropriate for the GM to say "no" and move things on. A paradigm of this, which [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] mentioned not far upthread and which I think I may have mentioned a long way upthread, is - in my 4e game - searching bodies or rooms for generic loot. That is the sort of no-stake irrelevance that I'm not interested in spending time on at the table, and the alternative to "You find 12 cp" is "No, there's nothing there, now can we get on with it?!"

And here's another one: if the GM is adjudicating action resolutions by reference to a prior conception of the details of the gameworld - whether in the notes, or made up on the spot - then ascertaining those details starts to become a focus of play. Which, per se, means that thematically-significant action declarations becomes less of a focus of play. That makes RPGing less enjoyable for me.

And for fun and completeness, here's one example of how "say 'yes' or roll the dice" can be applied in the context of thematically significant action declarations in relation to loot:

​

I’d say there’s a meaningful difference between agency (control) of your character and agency (control) of results.

Both provide input into the fiction or narrative, but in a different way. The force placed against the players/characters is essentially the same when the GM arbitrarily decides results in the moment, or ahead of time. Neither affects your control of the character’s actions, and as long as the GM is assessing the appropriateness and validity as the result is introduced into play I’d say there isn’t really a qualitative difference either.

To me its not so much a question of when something was authored, but more a question of the GM playing their part in good faith and contributing meaningfully to the narrative. I can certainly agree that with preauthored material there’s a possibility that the GM may not follow that standard, but then again the can generate a self serving agenda on the fly too.

 

[pemerton]

It is obvious that I mean PCs. It is the sort of thing readers and listeners should be able to discern from context. It doesn't require building a new lexicon or always being super precise about the division when it is clear a person is talking about a player character.

Well I thought you meant players, because you talked about declaring actions - and it is players who declare actions for their PCs while playing RPGs. I was doing my best to make sense of your post.

I don't know what you mean by PCs declaring actions, and given that is what you were saying that means I don't understand what point you were trying to make.

I am not interested in debating you Pemerton.

<snip>

You do it through definitions.

<snip>

I think there are a lot of things you do rhetorically that are pretty shady in these discussions.

You don't want to debate, just call my shady?

This thread isn't about definitions. It's about techniques of play.

No one takes issue with his conceptualizing player agency in that way.

You seem to be, when you attack me for my "definitions".

It is when he tries to deconsruct other peoples' notions of player character freedom (essentially arguing they are not truly free). There is a play style battle going on underneath all these arguments.

There is not "battle". There is analysis.

You seem to be saying that it's illegitimate to analyse the techniques that other RPGers use. Why?

 

[Tony Vargas]

As to your question about the red dragon: I still think you don't understand how Story Now gaming works. The GM frames scenes in response to player cues (stated goals, character builds and backstory, etc.) and/or as the response to failed outcomes of declared actions.

I'm not 100% clear on that 'player cues' bit, but....

There is no "choosing to stick a red dragon the characters only have a slim chance to beat at 1st level into an adventure" because there is no adventure; there is only the story ... now. If the players have indicated their desire to meet such a dragon in some fashion, then that does not circumscribe their agency.

And, if they haven't? If they've stated a desire to avoid draconic entanglements?

If the GM frames the PCs into a meeting with such a dragon as the outcome of some failed check, (1) the GM is obliged to build off player cues, so they must have indicated a desire to encounter such a dragon for it to be salient, (2) the stakes would have been set prior to resolution, so if they fail the roll, they get what they bargain for, (3) red dragons can be made to be level appropriate foes even for first level characters in 4E, and

A Red Dragon Wyrmling was a level 5 Elite, which was slightly less (400exp) monster than a level 1 solo (500exp) FWIW.

(4) why would you presume such an encounter would be combat, and fight-to-the-death combat at that? More likely, such an outcome of some failed action would be the initiation of a skill challenge, perhaps to escape a threatening red dragon.

I'd presume combat because combat's the last resort - one side or another can always push it that far.
But, OK, "escape a mildly annoyed Adult Red Dragon with better things to do than hunt you to the ends of the world" could have been a low-level skill challenge, I suppose. ;|

 

[Emerikol]

How do the players learn who their friends are, where the local swimming holes are, what the local customs are?

My experience of the sort of play you describe is that the answer to these sorts of questions if "The GM tells them." Which, for me, is fairly unimmersive - it's like having to ask someone else to remind me of what and who I am!

EDIT for clarity: I'm not talking about learning new things here - eg the PC sees a new landscape or building, and the player has the GM describing it to him/her. I'm talking about all the things that are intuitive and second nature to a person, which it's therefore weird to experience as if they're being newly-learned from outside.

Prior to the start of the game, the player works with the DM to come up with a backstory which will include local knowledge if appropriate to the sandbox they are playing inside. More often than not they are travellers coming into a somewhat new area. What doesn't happen is that major things are just made up at the table. The players are working together to defeat shared enemies. Being able to conjure up just the right bit of knowledge whenever they like is mighty convenient and immersion busting for the rest of the players. If a player has knowledge in an area, then of course they can roll for it. To me communication between the player and DM about what they experience or know is the essence of roleplaying. So I tend to dice for knowledge to make the flow of the game go smoothly.

 

[Emerikol]

A Pemerton Quote:
My own view - which is not an expression of a semantic opinion, but an expression of a preference for play - is that if a player's declared action cannot succeed, because of an unrevealed decision by the GM about the setting/backstory, then the player does not have control over his/her PC's actions. The GM has, on that occasion of play, exercised control.


Sorry, I copied this and didn't have the original post.

This post is perhaps the clear demarcation between our styles. I think it is succinct enough. If the world exists, then the DM is merely revealing that the players lack of knowledge has prevented the declared action from happening. If the world does not exist, then of course the DM is deciding because the world has not yet been created. And by existence, I mean is detailed. The difference Permerton is that my worlds really do have a lot detailed. Stuff the players could not possibly know on day one. Finding out those truths is the very purpose of the game to my players. If I told them I would just make it up as I go, with perhaps a few die rolls for guidance, they'd all walk out. We don't even need a DM for that they'd say. We can roll ourselves if that is all you provide.

Now in those cases where something is not detailed, out approach is exactly the same. We dice for it based upon the probability of it being true. Perhaps you want to use some universal chance whereas the probability in my campaign will be the actually probability based on knowledge of the world.

So if you feel the DM "revealing" the world is creating it for you then sure why not create some of it yourself. If the world to the best of the DM's ability is created already and well designed and consistent and that is what you want from your DM then no you don't feel like the DM "revealing" the world is creating it for you.

 

[pemerton]

If on a successful check the fiction the player desires is realized (example: there is a secret door) and on a failed check the fiction the player desires is not realized (example: There is no secret door)... who sets the standard for success around the said action (and thus the realization or non-realization of the player's desired fiction? Doesn't whoever decides this in turn limit or even control player agency.

The design of resolution systems is pretty important, yes.

I think that varies by game mechanic. I am not sure what that may be in Burning Wheel, which seems to be pemerton's primary game

<snip>

I am guessing that Burning Wheel and Cortex+ and the other games pemerton tends to cite are similarly designed. I'm sure he's shared how they work at some point, but I don't recall.

At the moment my primary game is Cortex+ Heroic. Cortex+ Heroic is a dice pool resolution system: each character (protagonist, antagonist, any personified traps or machines, etc) has a range of ratings across various traits, and draws on those to construct a pool. The acting character rolls the pool and (in accordance with the detailed rules for the process) creates both a total, and chooses one die to be the effect (rated by die size, not pips showing). The reacting character does the same - and if there is no character opposing the action, then the Doom Pool is rolled. There are a range of options for pool modifications both before and after the dice are rolled: players spend "plot points", the GM spends dice from the Doom Pool. There is a systematic bias in favour of the players, because (simplifying a little bit) they can spend a point to achieve a manipulation involving a die of any size; whereas the GM has to spend a die from the Doom Pool of equal or greater size than the desired manipulation; and the way the system works means that the players earn about four plot points for every d12 that appears in the Doom Pool, while a 1:1 ratio gives the GM only d6s in the Doom Pool.

There are no tight guidelines on encounter building, but the systematic bias in favour of the players gives them a definite advantage. And the size of the Doom Pool is transparent at the table, and can be (and in my experience often is) an object of player strategy.

Burning Wheel uses "objective" difficulties (called obstacles) - there are general guidelines (eg routine is Ob 2; extremely difficult is Ob 4) and also difficulties for various skills (eg using Astrology to prepare a horoscope is Ob 2, and using it to interpret omens is Ob 5; Scavenging a modest bag of coins is Ob 3; etc). The GM guidelines emphasis that determinig obstacles is an important element in establishing setting.

Resolution is rolling a pool of D6 - 4+ is a success, and overall success requires as many successful dice as the obstacle. Players have a variety of options for manipulating their dice pools, but some actions can't be succeeded at. Players have an incentive to declare a certain number of such actions, because advancement of an ability depends upon using that ability in a range of checks of varying difficulties, including some impossible ones. So one aspect of "skilled play" in BW is putting your PC into impossible circumstances, to earn the checks needed to advance. Because BW has very strong "fail forward" resolution, with the GM having a strong set of player signals to draw on (Beliefs, Instincts, Relationships, Affiliations, Reputations, Character Traits) a player who puts his/her PC into circumstances where success is impossible is nevertheless feeding into the resulting fiction. It's grittier, more intimate, more demanding on both players and GM, than Cortex+ Heroic or 4e.

4e uses "subjective" DCs - in combat statblocks they're a function of NPC/creature level; and for skill checks they're based on a DC-by-level table. Provided the maths of PC build doesn't break down, these create the "space" for the players to make their own luck, especially using various abilities that allow buffs or retries. (In my main 4e game, at 30th level, the only real breakdown in the maths is the Sage of Ages PC, who has epic destiny features that break the maths for knowledge checks.)

The fourth system that I have an active campaign in is Classic Traveller. It uses objective DCs, and in basic ethos is quite similar to Burning Wheel. However, it doesn't give players a reason to embrace some impossible circumstances; and it doesn't give players options to manipulate their check dice. This means that it is a very dice driven game.

Of these systems, Traveller's resolution system imposes the biggest burden on player agency, shifting it to the dice instead. In all these systems, its important that players have a clear sense of how hard stuff will be: in 4e and Cortex+ this arises from a general familiarity with the play of the system and the best use of PC-side resources; in BW and Traveller, this is more about a robust sense of the fiction and a high degree of imagination in how to bring detailed PC skill lists to bear on it.

EDIT:

To further expound I know he often cites the Marvel Heroic rpg and in that there are a couple of things you can do with the Doom Pool that definitely affect player agency (specifically as pemerton defines it) listed below.

*To use any affect that normally costs a Plot Point.
*Use special effects (SFX) that cost doom dice to activate.
*Split a hero off from other heroes or force them together.
*Activate a Hero's Limit. But first offer to pay them 1 PP instead.
*Create a new Scene Distinction (costs a D8 or higher). Anyonemay use this Distinction instead of their own Distinctions.
*To have a Villain interrupt the Action Order.
*Activate Scene or Event effects.
*Spend 2D12 to end a scene immediately. If the Heroes wereclose to winning, ask them to describe how they get most ofwhat they want and then present them with a tough choice,you win but X happens or at Y cost. If the Heroes were notclose to winning, ask them to describe how they lost or whatthey had to sacrifice (something significant) to win.

Now I understand he has an issue with secret backstory but honestly most of these effects you can create with the Doom Pool in the MH game seem to tread on the type of player agency he is advocating for... Create a new scene distinction, Ending a scene immediately, Split a hero off or force him to join up with the group... how do these not step all over the type of agency he is advocating for? Is it ok because they aren't secret backstory? Or is the infringement upon agency (regardless of it's source) really the issue...

Uses of the Doom Pool to manipulate GM-side dice pools is part of the back-and-forth between players and GM. It occupies the same functional space, in this system, as does a GM in D&D deciding whether or not a NPC or creature uses some limited use ability to buff itself or counter a PC's action.

Use of the Doom Pool to affect the flow of an Action Scene, by interrputing the action order or introducing new elements, is part of managing and introducing complications. It has no analogue I can think of in classic D&D; in 4e, it is analogous to introducing new enemies into a combat encounter part way through, with the effect of stepping up the difficulty and hence the XP the PCs will accrue for the encounter.

Use of the Doom Pool to end a scene is interesting. Given that the players get to narrate consequences in response (which you have quoted from the rulebook) it doesn't completely run roughshod over their agency in respect of the shared fiction. But it is certainly something my players want to avoid, and they actively take steps to try and ensure the Doom Pool doesn't build up to include 2d12 (eg making choices about dice pools to minimise the chances of rolling 1s).

So this playstyle only really works for games specifically designed for it... that's interesting.

But not that surprising!

Classic D&D dungeon crawling will only work in a system that's designed for it (eg it needs rules for mapping, for wandering monsters, for searching, etc). You can't do that sort of play using Cortex+ Heroic, and frankly even classic systems like RQ and RM aren't very good at it because they don't have the right sort of rules for combat and saving throws.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There is not "battle". There is analysis.

You seem to be saying that it's illegitimate to analyse the techniques that other RPGers use. Why?

People can analyze. But we don't have to accept their conclusions, and if their conclusions and use of terminology make us suspicious, we can voice that opinion. I've been on forums too long and seen this kind of thing from all sides. You say it isn't a battle but it clearly is, and you are clearly engaging in tactics that dismantle other styles and techniques in order to build up your own. That is why I am not interested in debating you and content to express my wariness of your position. I'm sorry Pemerton, I've seen too many of your posts not to recognize what you are doing. When someone uses PC in the way I did, and it is obvious what I mean, but you shrug your shoulders and insist on an unusually strict literal interpretation of my words, its clear you are just using rhetoric to win points in an argument. Your too smart to misunderstand what I was saying.