What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Arilyn]

Well... your description of Story Now is off -- there can be very strong established themes for Story Now. Otherwise you're claiming Blades in the Dark isn't Story Now.

And, your description of Simulationism is... very odd. It's not about simulating story so much as trying to simulate a world or genre as much as possible. It's the feel simulationism goes for, not really story. If you're bending your game or unsung a system specifically so that the sorry that emerges has the right feel, that's simulationism.

Call of Cthulu is pretty strongly simulationist -- your PCs investigate a horror that likely kills them or drives them mad and reinforces the feel of Lovcraftian horror. You aren't supposed to win so much as experience the simulation of Lovecraft's stories.

In a later article, Ron Edwards claims he was in error over his initial description of narrativist. He, like many others, considered it heavy on story telling. On reflecting further, he realized that was a poor description, since all rpgs tell stories. In fact, most "narrative" games are actually simulationist, because it's story that is being simulated. It's a little tricky. But if you think of players getting together to do CoC, they are simulating Lovecraft stories, as you mentioned. It can be broader, however. Fantasy rpging could be simulating the epic quest, or swords and sorcery. If you are playing, and saying, "Hey, it would be really cool if....or it makes sense that the villain would do this...or my players will obviously do this, so I better make sure..." This is predicting, probably crafting a story at least a little ahead of time, and is therefore simulationist, because a story with familiar tropes is being formed ahead of time, or being used to help the story be more story- like. Story Now isn't totally a blank slate to start with, but little or no assumptions are made. The story, if one forms, is seen only at the end of the session. It's immediate.
The original description of Simulationism still stands, it's just been expanded to include story simulation, as well as reality simulating. Anyway, article is super long, and I probably haven't explained it all that well.

I said Story Now can't mix with other styles because it's the extreme of narrativist play, but not sure I'm right. Since very few players only play one style, but a mix of differing proportions, I'm thinking BiTD, is heavy narrativist with a dose of Simulationism?

I know it really doesn't matter, but this is a thread on game philosophy, so....

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not a rhetorical question.

Would out not be rhetorical, then, to all you what you would do if a player in the game referenced showed up with an adamant goblin ally?

What you're going at isn't a playstyle issue, its a social contract issue. This is a basic communication issue that should be handled before the game even starts, and, clearly, had nothing to do with playstyle as you do it, too. Your question is akin to asking what a GM would do if a player showed up with a Wizard to her announced hard sci-fi game -- something other than intended playstyle or use of worldbuilding has gone wrong.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think that last claim is true. If a player says "I want to explore the catacombs, assuming this city has some?" and the GM checks a book/key and says "No, sorry, no catacombs", that is distinguishable from "I'm really not in the mood for catacombs today - can we do something else?"

If one of those is distinguishable from the other the GM is doing it wrong.

and both are different from "Sure, there are catacombs - you've heard there's an entrance at the back of the cathedral",

In result, obviously; but that result could also have come from the GM's notes, or her catacomb-friendly mood at the time.

or "Maybe - make a Catacombs-wise check".

Or perhaps "OK. What are you doing to determine whether the city has some?" (this would be my most likely response whether my DM notes already covered catacombs or not)

If the first scene has been authored by a player (eg in the form of a "kicker" for his/her PC), the player can tell that too.

If the "kicker" is a scene specifically intended to lead to exploring catacombs the GM is, if I read things right, somewhat obliged to go along with this. Otherwise, why use kickers?

On a different note, however, if each player's kicker scene doesn't somehow directly involve meeting some of the other PCs I'd be demanding rewrites until they do. I far prefer at least some of the party to meet each other first, and have a chance to get to know each other a bit (and roleplay through this process!), before they start in on their adventures.

All these different ways of establishing the framing of scenes generate different dynamics and experiences of play.

Perhaps, though I'm not sure to any extreme degree. Much more difference would ceom from the pacing used by the GM and-or expected (or forced) by the players.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

If the players all build PCs who are roguish smuggler types, what happens?

Well then, things probably wouldn't proceed according to the DM's plans.

The PCs would likely end up taking the lighthouse for their own and start using it as a signalling device for their smuggling exploits.

Which would absolutely rock!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am self-admittedly at a loss. IME, I have simply found, however, that Ron Edwards, the Forge, and all associated terminology generally engender divisive conversations.

That's my observation, as well.

If you take a group of people, and arbitrarily divide them up into categories, however valid or invalid, they'll immediately start making cases for their category being better than the others...

...preceding the categorization with a mushy "y'all have qualities of each category & are special snowflakes, but..." in no way heads off that tendency, it's just a way of dodging responsibility for the conflict you just touched off.


Using the edition war metaphor: Edward's was that conflict's Merchant of Death, selling weaponized labels to both sides.

 

[Calithorne]

The purpose of worldbuilding is to have fun. What I mean is that YOU, the DM is having fun building a world. If you are not having fun building a world, then really there's no point to it, because DMing is a hobby, not a job.

You should not expect your players to care as much as you do about your world. Here's the trick, let them make characters they love, let them do awesome stuff, and then they will start loving your world because their character is part of it.

What that means is that you really need to make sure that character death almost never happens, or if it does, you allow them to come back to life without too much difficulty. Sometimes, a whole campaign might die because someone lost a beloved character. I've seen this happen on more than one occasion.

Of course, sometimes a player wants his character to die to make some sort of noble sacrifice for the good of the group. I've done that twice myself, allowing my character to die in some awesome way that saves everyone else. Such a death should be rewarded by allowing the player who did it to have a pretty good replacement character, without too much penalty in experience points.

 

[pemerton]

Would out not be rhetorical, then, to all you what you would do if a player in the game referenced showed up with an adamant goblin ally?

Are you asking? If so, here's an answer: it would depend. I might ask the player why they just didn't say they didn't want to play a game where conflicts with goblins might be expected. But if the goblin ally is a renegade goblin, we might start working out together (or maybe I'd just have the player tell me) how goblins respond to renegades, and what makes a goblin renegade in any event, or . . .

What you're going at isn't a playstyle issue, its a social contract issue. This is a basic communication issue that should be handled before the game even starts, and, clearly, had nothing to do with playstyle as you do it, too. Your question is akin to asking what a GM would do if a player showed up with a Wizard to her announced hard sci-fi game -- something other than intended playstyle or use of worldbuilding has gone wrong.

That's entirely up to them, isn't it? I've set the scene and introduced a situation. It's not up to me to decide what they do with it, so I really can't say.

It seems that Ovinomancer may have misunderstood the social contract at your game.

Well then, things probably wouldn't proceed according to the DM's plans.

Well, the GM in question said there was no script - that seems also to imply no plans, or at least no plans of a particular sort.

 

[pemerton]

f a player says "I want to explore the catacombs, assuming this city has some?" and the GM checks a book/key and says "No, sorry, no catacombs", that is distinguishable from "I'm really not in the mood for catacombs today - can we do something else?"

If one of those is distinguishable from the other the GM is doing it wrong.

I think to any English speaker they're going to be distinguishable. Unless you're saying that a good GM should mumble!?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Are you asking? If so, here's an answer: it would depend. I might ask the player why they just didn't say they didn't want to play a game where conflicts with goblins might be expected. But if the goblin ally is a renegade goblin, we might start working out together (or maybe I'd just have the player tell me) how goblins respond to renegades, and what makes a goblin renegade in any event, or . . .


It seems that Ovinomancer may have misunderstood the social contract at your game.

Well, the GM in question said there was no script - that seems also to imply no plans, or at least no plans of a particular sort.

Sorry, I did what? Clearly there's a social contract in play there, and this situation has been handed by it, and it didn't involve playstyle or amount of worldbuilding. Given that's all I said perhaps you can point out where I said anything about that specific social construct that's in error? Failing this, perhaps you could then apologize for putting words into my mouth?

Not rhetorical questions.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Considering you yourself presented an example where you gave your players a requirement for their characters to have a reason to fight goblins so that it matched your intended theme, surely this isn't the problem you're trying to imply it is?

But the post he's responding to doesn't make such an assertion. Given the detail with which the story was framed in that post, it seems reasonable to consider that no such instruction was intended, though its possible [MENTION=21473]Sebastrd[/MENTION] simply didn't consider that dimension.

However, even the lack of any such consideration is indicative. He says

For example: This weekend I'll be running a one-shot for a friend and his two sons. I've decided that:

1. I want to go with a gothic horror theme.

which to me at least points in the direction of a set notion of how the game is 'supposed' to go, and that he himself decided the theme, genre, and tone of the game on his own. Now he COULD have done so in consultation with the players, that's entirely possible, he just doesn't present it that way. Again, this tends to make me think that the paradigm is "GM comes up with story elements, players follow along and make it work."

Later he says

All of the above is wordbuilding. None of the above has scripted anything out. Its an interesting situation, and it's up to the players and their characters to deal with it. All of it is subject to change as the adventure unfolds until it has been established as part of the fiction in play. However, it provides me with a framework from which to hang the opening scenes and to guide me as I adjudicate the players' actions and to answer their questions as we proceed. There is plenty of room for the players to exercise agency via suggestion or action resolution. There is also plenty of room for the players to discover the setting ideas and elements I've come up with and enjoy learning what only I know thus far. That's what worldbuilding is for, after all.

which is frankly kind of a mixed message. He talks about "discover the setting ideas and elements I've come up with" etc. He also claims that 'nothing is scripted'. Still, if you read the list of elements it is at least a rudimentary meta-plot and backstory. Certain things seem to be thought of as 'stuff that will happen', 'a storm', 'maintenance of the light-house', etc.

What I would call Story Now play would leave the idea of a golem/undead and interest in taking on some sort of mission (possibly as a concomitant to another more general goal) as things that would evolve out of PLAYER ideas, not usually ones that would be hatched by GM and thought of as the central elements of plot. In other words we have, to whatever degree Sebastrd sticks/stuck with it, a 'Story Before' represented by that plot.

I think he quite reasonably explicates what world building (at least adventure building, I don't want to quibble) is about. It is supplying a ready-made situation and supporting details which feed into that story. Now, this is described as a 'one-shot', there's quite limited time to spend on establishment. So that could also be cited as a reason to generate these elements ahead of time. While Story Now could easily work in this time frame if you are somewhat practiced you probably want to have a chance to take a few sessions to get it right.

Anyway, its probably something you could find in a TSR module (somewhat elaborated). The assumption of the table is that the GM presents an 'adventure' and the players USUALLY are 'good sports' and take it up, with the understanding that if they want to carry on some activity of their own on the side, or further explore some aspect of the situation not addressed already, then the GM will likely go along, at least up to a certain point.

Of course, Sebastrd could simply ignore all his own notes and material and just go with what the player's backstory or whatnot suggests when it comes to it, or he could push the players to stay mostly on the 'rails' (IE by having the townsfolk insist in no uncertain terms that the PCs be the ones to go out to the lighthouse). I'm assuming from what he's said that he isn't going to be that insistent.