What is *worldbuilding* for?

[hawkeyefan]

It's not always an exaggeration, based on a few players I've met over the years.

Thing is, a supers game (i.e. a milieu where Spiderman would make sense) kind of expects you to have your superpowers - or most of them - right out of the gate. Which is fine, as long as it's made clear that "mechanical" development and growth of the character over the campaign is likely to be near zero. To me it'd be like starting a D&D game with 20th level characters, where the game system caps at 21st.

The only other real option is - and here Spidey is a good example - to start as Peter Parker and play out the origin story. In this case there will certainly be "mechanical" growth to the character but it'll all kind of happen in one great big whack - you either have superpowers or you don't. But it'd be tricky trying to play out the origin stories of a bunch of supers all together in one party, I guess. In D&D terms you'd go from 1st level to 15th level in one fell swoop, skipping all the ones in between.

Maybe this is part of why supers games have never interested me in the slightest. That, and superheroes just don't realistically fit into the world no matter how hard you try; I find this jarring in the Marvel movies sometimes as well.

A low or even mid-level D&D character, however - particularly a non-caster - *can* realistically fit in to its ordinary game world just fine; even more so in a system like 1e or 5e where the by-level power curve isn't as steep. You can play an ordinary Joe who just happens to be really good at what he does (fighting, sneaking, tracking, persuading, whatevs) and take it from there, watching him develop both mechanically* and as a character. And you also get to play through all the intervening steps rather than jump straight from 'nobody' to 'superhero'.

* - and even this isn't important beyond the very basics e.g. added hit points and baked-in class abilities.

So back to character concept: on the uncommon occasions where I put any thought into a character before rolling it up, I might have an end ideal for what that character could become at high level but I'm fully aware that a) in-game events can and likely will change that ideal significantly; b) the chances of the character surviving** long enough to reach that ideal state are low to zero; and c) what seems workable in my mind might not be at all workable once play begins.

** - including both in-game survival (the usual character death bit) and meta-survival (does playing this character cross my boredom threshold).

Lanefan

But there's nothing stopping a game from having a different approach than D&D.

Couldn't a fantasy game allow a certain character class or type to have a variety of abilities from the very beginning of play, and then rather than gaining new abilities over time, the character can simply get better at them, or perhaps decide which ones to improve?

This is of course assuming that there is any progression expected in the game. I don't see why a game can't just start with fully realized characters, with little to no advancement in mind for play. Sure, I think such a game would lack something, but there's no reason a game couldn't function that way.

 

[Lanefan]

But there's nothing stopping a game from having a different approach than D&D.

Couldn't a fantasy game allow a certain character class or type to have a variety of abilities from the very beginning of play, and then rather than gaining new abilities over time, the character can simply get better in them, or perhaps choose which to focus on.

This is of course assuming that there is any progression expected in the game. I don't see why a game can't just start with fully realized characters, with little to no advancement in mind for play. Sure, I think such a game would lack something, but there's no reason a game couldn't function that way.

Sure it could function that way for a while, but I see it becoming somewhat self-limiting once the DM and-or players in effect run out of stories. For a short one-adventure campaign or a one-off or anything else that doesn't go on very long - sure, this works just fine. But for anything intended to have "legs" enough to last for any significant length of time I'd see it as unnecessarily limiting.

With an advancement-based system* one can introduce new and-or more robust foes and threats as the campaign goes along, giving a huge amount more design space for stories-adventures-whatever than would otherwise exist without having to start over.

* - even a very slow one, as I can personally attest.

That, and there's also a large subset of players out there to whom the *ping* of a level bump is a (or the) primary reason for playing at all. (I'd better note here that I'm not really one of these)

Lan-"*ping*"-efan

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure it could function that way for a while, but I see it becoming somewhat self-limiting once the DM and-or players in effect run out of stories. For a short one-adventure campaign or a one-off or anything else that doesn't go on very long - sure, this works just fine. But for anything intended to have "legs" enough to last for any significant length of time I'd see it as unnecessarily limiting.

With an advancement-based system* one can introduce new and-or more robust foes and threats as the campaign goes along, giving a huge amount more design space for stories-adventures-whatever than would otherwise exist without having to start over.

* - even a very slow one, as I can personally attest.

That, and there's also a large subset of players out there to whom the *ping* of a level bump is a (or the) primary reason for playing at all. (I'd better note here that I'm not really one of these)

Lan-"*ping*"-efan

Sure, but you're valuing long term play over short term, which is totally a preference. Nothing wrong with it, but others may not like that style of play and may prefer a game where they get to do cool things with their character right away.

I personally like some kind of progression to take place, and my current 5E campaign has many aspects and characters dating back to AD&D...so I have no aversion to long term. But I think there's just as much value in and demand for games with a more immediate level of playability.

I mean, even within the D&D world, haven't we all played in a game that started at a higher level than 1? So there's a demand or occasional need just in D&D, let alone other games.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, even within the D&D world, haven't we all played in a game that started at a higher level than 1? So there's a demand or occasional need just in D&D, let alone other games.

Actually, other than con games and intentional one-offs, I have not.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Actually, other than con games and intentional one-offs, I have not.

Soooo....other than the times you have, you haven’t?

 

[Maxperson]

To tie it back to worldbuilding...it seems pretty similar to me. I can see value in both approaches; one where the world is largely predetermined prior to the start of play, and another that largely builds the world through play.

In either case, it would seem odd to take one approach and then expect it to deliver the result of the other approach. And I think that’s the cause of most of the tension throughout the discussion.

That's one of the reasons that I like D&D so much. The system is so broadly built, that while it doesn't do any style amazingly well, with a bit of tweaking it can do most styles decently(or better) well. You can get a bunch of different experiences out of it.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure it could function that way for a while, but I see it becoming somewhat self-limiting once the DM and-or players in effect run out of stories. For a short one-adventure campaign or a one-off or anything else that doesn't go on very long - sure, this works just fine. But for anything intended to have "legs" enough to last for any significant length of time I'd see it as unnecessarily limiting.

Sure, but for most people a year or two is long term.

It's pretty easy to do a year or two of stories under that sort of structure.

 

[Aldarc]

Now to address troubles and compels specifically in FATE and why I feel that even when self selected they can be a hurdle...
First let's look at FATE points...

I'm already well familiar with Fate, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], so there is no need to lecture me on it. Maxperson and Hawkeye clarified your reading.

No that's not what I am saying at all, what I am saying is that in some systems the players are encouraged to roleplay out their flaws but it's not a mechanism to create story and thus isn't enforced. IMO this allows players in those games more power over how, when and why their flaws are expressed vs. in FATE where a vital meta-currency is tied to it and it is used as a mechanism to generate the ebb and flow of story. I'm not placing a value judgement on either as it's clearly boils down to what you are trying to get from your gaming experience.

IME with those systems, "What flaws?"

 

[Aldarc]

Thing is, a supers game (i.e. a milieu where Spiderman would make sense) kind of expects you to have your superpowers - or most of them - right out of the gate. Which is fine, as long as it's made clear that "mechanical" development and growth of the character over the campaign is likely to be near zero. To me it'd be like starting a D&D game with 20th level characters, where the game system caps at 21st.

I don't know why you are so fixated on endgame power levels when I explicitly said that is not typically what most people IME have in mind when criticizing level gating of powers. I have not met a player who wanted their character to cast Wish right out of the gate. I would say that the players generally want moderate levels of competency such that they have sufficient tools to sufficiently play out their character concepts with sufficient frequency of coolness.

Maybe this is part of why supers games have never interested me in the slightest. That, and superheroes just don't realistically fit into the world no matter how hard you try; I find this jarring in the Marvel movies sometimes as well.

D&D characters are essentially superheroes. Some are more the Avengers, some are more Heroes for Hire, others are the Fantastic Four, but they are superheroes all the same.

** - including both in-game survival (the usual character death bit) and meta-survival (does playing this character cross my boredom threshold).

And that's part of the problem in the slog to reach the desired character concept.

Sure it could function that way for a while, but I see it becoming somewhat self-limiting once the DM and-or players in effect run out of stories. For a short one-adventure campaign or a one-off or anything else that doesn't go on very long - sure, this works just fine. But for anything intended to have "legs" enough to last for any significant length of time I'd see it as unnecessarily limiting.

With an advancement-based system* one can introduce new and-or more robust foes and threats as the campaign goes along, giving a huge amount more design space for stories-adventures-whatever than would otherwise exist without having to start over.

That, and there's also a large subset of players out there to whom the *ping* of a level bump is a (or the) primary reason for playing at all. (I'd better note here that I'm not really one of these)

These are not mutually exclusive, and you are not guaranteed to not exhaust story ideas in an advancement-based system. But here I would point out that Fate does have an advancement system, but it is often much easier to jump into the basic character concept at character creation.

 

[pemerton]

Couldn't a fantasy game allow a certain character class or type to have a variety of abilities from the very beginning of play, and then rather than gaining new abilities over time, the character can simply get better at them, or perhaps decide which ones to improve?

Yes. BW can play that way. Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy largely does play that way (not surprising, given its roots in Marvel Heroic RP). There must be many other examples too, that I just happen to be ignorant of.