What is *worldbuilding* for?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not quite true. There are the rules for improving skills or stats in Book 2. Having recently used them, I can report that they're not much like D&D!

Oh, there's a sort of a not-even-really-a-rule kind of "you could let characters gain a skill point if they do X, or Y, or Z." Its hard to even call it a 'rule', and its, at best, entirely optional and even 'experimental' in nature. It also doesn't really work unless you are VERY stingy about allowing players to access it. Anyone with a modest fortune, say from selling an old scout or free trader, could otherwise just spend all their time jacking their skills sky-high instead of actually DOING anything. Simply have your character bail from his career at a fairly early age (say 2-3 enlistments) and then 'study' instead, you can get the skills you WANT and do it much faster than on a career path. In other words it isn't really something that should be counted as a standard part of the game.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], I think you're skipping right to the end of that section, which does have the sort of stuff you mention (eg paying for experimental neural implants to get a skill).

But the default rules are for improvement by training: you can attempt a 8+ training roll; if it fails you can't try again for a year, if it succeeds you boost two skills by 1; at the end of 4 years you lose the boost unless you make another training roll for the same skills, at which point the +1 becomes permanent and you get another temporary +1; etc. (There are some bells and whistles around combat vs non-combat skills, but I'll let you look them up yourself unless you want me to elaborate.)

Alternatively, you can make the training roll to maintain a regimen of physical exercise which boosts all physical stats by 1 for 4 years; or you can make a training roll and pay a fee for correspondence material to raise your EDU if it is lower than your INT.

Finally, there is a rule for taking a 4 year sabbatical, to gain a single skill at rank 2 for a CR 70,000 cost.

I can report that my players did not find these to be wildly generous PC-improvement rules!

 

[Aldarc]

Are you essentially saying that world-building gains value for you as a group activity?

Essentially yes, but I also regard the how as an important part of that process.

 

[Maxperson]

Since we are discussing character creation and worldbuilding, I will express one of the reasons my players and I have enjoyed Fate: character creation often explicitly builds the setting with player-made character/plot/setting hooks.

When I say that "character creation builds the setting," I do not mean simply any implicit setting that results from the player choosing preexisting class, race, and background options. Instead, I mean that the players often can create setting or have ways to connect themselves explicitly into the world via their aspects. For example, a player could create the Trouble, "I won't let Baron Ziegermann foil me again!" This Trouble tells me that a "Baron Ziegermann" exists in the setting. It tells me that the PC has experienced difficulties with Baron Ziegermann in their past. And by having this as a trouble, it tells me that the player wants their character to encounter Baron Ziegermann in the story.

Alternatively, a player could create for their character the high concept "Disgraced Ex-Bodyguard of Prince Alfric." This gives me, the GM so much information about the world and the stories that the players want to experience. Here in the latter example, I would have presumably worked with the player in developing this aspect:
* Player: I want to play a disgraced bodyguard for a noble.
* Me: Okay cool, but let's flesh that out more. What noble position did they hold?
* Player: Maybe a prince.
* Me: Sure, that works. I have a few more questions. 1) What is their name? 2) How did you fall from grace as a bodyguard? And 3) Is the prince still alive or did you fail to protect them?
* Player: How about 'Alfric'? Hmmmm... how I fell from grace? I failed to protect Prince Alfric from being poisoned because I was "distracted" from my duties by a romantic fling with one of my fellow knights. How about "yes" the prince is still alive, but maybe the prince is now permanently crippled?

Though the latter two questions are not explicitly part of the High Concept, they are questions that would likely need to be answered for the understanding of the high concept. This High Concept (and associated questions) gives me, the GM, "meatier" setting material than if I had created this NPC as part of some nebulous worldbuilding prep. How is this "meatier"? I did not have to pre-create this NPC and dangle them like shiny objects in front of the players. Instead, the creation of this High Concept entails and conveys player investment into the creation of the setting, the story expectations, and obviously the character. The aspect represents potential plot hooks that the player is offering the GM as part of the rules mechanics.

This is not to disparage worldbuilding as a GM exercise, but I have found that the collective group often gets more out of a setting when they themselves contribute to its shape and contours through their characters. I also want to be clear here that players contributing to setting creation is definitely possible in other games. From what I have read, and perhaps [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] can chime in here with his experience, but Blades in the Dark has a similar goal, but comes at it from a different tact. As part of character creation, the player selects a few listed NPCs who act as either allies and/or rivals. This is meant to help the GM generate character-tied NPCs in advance. IME, however, Fate empowers that process more consistently than I have experienced with D&D.

I don't require a background in my games, but it does help. Not only does a background give me hooks to use by bring the PC background into game play, which players love, but it also affords them some worldbuilding. I often give them free reign to write up the village/town they are from, name NPCs, and so on. They also have the option of rolling up part of their background via the old Central Casting, which can result in good, bad and neutral events, some mechanical in nature, for their PCs. If the book gives them a mentor that is noble, I'll let them pick a name, where the noble is from, gender, etc. It's typically the only real worldbuilding that they do.

 

[Imaro]

Since we are discussing character creation and worldbuilding, I will express one of the reasons my players and I have enjoyed Fate: character creation often explicitly builds the setting with player-made character/plot/setting hooks.

When I say that "character creation builds the setting," I do not mean simply any implicit setting that results from the player choosing preexisting class, race, and background options. Instead, I mean that the players often can create setting or have ways to connect themselves explicitly into the world via their aspects. For example, a player could create the Trouble, "I won't let Baron Ziegermann foil me again!" This Trouble tells me that a "Baron Ziegermann" exists in the setting. It tells me that the PC has experienced difficulties with Baron Ziegermann in their past. And by having this as a trouble, it tells me that the player wants their character to encounter Baron Ziegermann in the story.

I'm curious do you think that D&D 5e's ideals, bonds and flaws can accomplish the same thing? If not... I have to ask, why not?

Alternatively, a player could create for their character the high concept "Disgraced Ex-Bodyguard of Prince Alfric." This gives me, the GM so much information about the world and the stories that the players want to experience. Here in the latter example, I would have presumably worked with the player in developing this aspect:
* Player: I want to play a disgraced bodyguard for a noble.
* Me: Okay cool, but let's flesh that out more. What noble position did they hold?
* Player: Maybe a prince.
* Me: Sure, that works. I have a few more questions. 1) What is their name? 2) How did you fall from grace as a bodyguard? And 3) Is the prince still alive or did you fail to protect them?
* Player: How about 'Alfric'? Hmmmm... how I fell from grace? I failed to protect Prince Alfric from being poisoned because I was "distracted" from my duties by a romantic fling with one of my fellow knights. How about "yes" the prince is still alive, but maybe the prince is now permanently crippled?

Though the latter two questions are not explicitly part of the High Concept, they are questions that would likely need to be answered for the understanding of the high concept. This High Concept (and associated questions) gives me, the GM, "meatier" setting material than if I had created this NPC as part of some nebulous worldbuilding prep. How is this "meatier"? I did not have to pre-create this NPC and dangle them like shiny objects in front of the players. Instead, the creation of this High Concept entails and conveys player investment into the creation of the setting, the story expectations, and obviously the character. The aspect represents potential plot hooks that the player is offering the GM as part of the rules mechanics.

Again I have to ask, how is this different from the GM and a player establishing and fleshing out character backstory (or more specifically an ideal bond or flaw) in D&D 5e?

This is not to disparage worldbuilding as a GM exercise, but I have found that the collective group often gets more out of a setting when they themselves contribute to its shape and contours through their characters. I also want to be clear here that players contributing to setting creation is definitely possible in other games. From what I have read, and perhaps @Ovinomancer can chime in here with his experience, but Blades in the Dark has a similar goal, but comes at it from a different tact. As part of character creation, the player selects a few listed NPCs who act as either allies and/or rivals. This is meant to help the GM generate character-tied NPCs in advance. IME, however, Fate empowers that process more consistently than I have experienced with D&D.

See my experience here is that not everyone enjoys this style. There are players who really aren't interested in fleshing out the GM's world through their character's backstory and traits (they may not even be that interested in fleshing out their own character's traits and personality). As someone who runs games (as opposed to playing them) near constantly I've been in this situation myself where I don't want to create a world... I want to play in someone else's world.

I see 1 major difference in how FATE (aspects) approaches this vs. D&D's (ideals, flaws and bonds)... the degree to which it is mandated as part of the game. In FATE aspects are mandatory and are a fundamental part of the game mechanics in play, which means there is no opting out of them and every player has to engage with them to the same degree (fully). D&D on the other hand treats it as an optional system which players can buy into fully or choose to ignore as they see fit. FATE is great if you have a group with total buy in and your method of setting building is great for players who want the experience of building the world (though I think it's a big mistake to assume that this is desired by all players or even a universally positive thing). However for a group that doesn't want to go deep into characterization and has no desire to build the world their stories take place in (or even a group that is mixed on the idea) FATE is pretty limiting and something like 5e, IMO, is a better fit since players can choose to buy in or not as much as they want.

EDIT: Though this is purely conjecture, I think this is a major reason games like FATE don't have the widespread appeal of something like D&D or more traditional rpg's. They require more from the players and IME, it's a requirement that makes it a less attractive option for some new players as well as casual players and even experienced players who don't necessarily fall into the Storytelling (and to a lesser extent the Actor) player types.

 

[Imaro]

I don't require a background in my games, but it does help. Not only does a background give me hooks to use by bring the PC background into game play, which players love, but it also affords them some worldbuilding. I often give them free reign to write up the village/town they are from, name NPCs, and so on. They also have the option of rolling up part of their background via the old Central Casting, which can result in good, bad and neutral events, some mechanical in nature, for their PCs. If the book gives them a mentor that is noble, I'll let them pick a name, where the noble is from, gender, etc. It's typically the only real worldbuilding that they do.

Emphasis mine... this IMO is key. I don't want me or the game to force this type of stuff on players who aren't interested in it.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm curious do you think that D&D 5e's ideals, bonds and flaws can accomplish the same thing? If not... I have to ask, why not?

Not really. D&D 5e's inspiration mechanic feels like a half-baked afterthought vomited last minute onto the game. As you say below, this is a fundamental mechanic of Fate's game play. It has bite. It is an integral part of the character. It is in the forefront and not an out-of-sight, out-of-mind background.

In regards to "what about 5E inspiration?," you may enjoy reading Angry DM's article "11 Ways to Take the Suck Out of Inspiration in D&D."

Again I have to ask, how is this different from the GM and a player establishing and fleshing out character backstory (or more specifically an ideal bond or flaw) in D&D 5e?

I hope you do not mind me asking, but are you fishing for a particular answer here? I ask because you earlier seemed to demonstrate proficient awareness of Fate. But IMO this question reads as an "But D&D 5E does this too!" Yet if one was sufficiently familiar with Fate, then it seems like one would readily spot the differences in these approaches and thus the question comes across as insincere. If I am reading you incorrectly, then I apologize in advance but this questioning seems incongruent with your earlier remarks on Fate. Also, I am aware that this is something of a non-answer, but I'm confused about where you are coming from here.

But [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], I did address this issue implictly earlier in my post.

I also want to be clear here that players contributing to setting creation is definitely possible in other games... IME, however, Fate empowers that process more consistently than I have experienced with D&D.

See my experience here is that not everyone enjoys this style. There are players who really aren't interested in fleshing out the GM's world through their character's backstory and traits (they may not even be that interested in fleshing out their own character's traits and personality). As someone who runs games (as opposed to playing them) near constantly I've been in this situation myself where I don't want to create a world... I want to play in someone else's world.

That's fine. I am speaking only about my own players, my own preferences, and my own experiences, which I made quite clear in my opening paragraph.

Furthermore, I don't think that many players conscientiously set about to accomplish or even enjoy the point in bold. But most players IME are interested and invested in who their characters are, even non-actors/storytellers. Most players don't regard this as worldbuilding at all, but as simply character creation. The actual worldbuilding implications often escape them. Yet even if one does not want to "worldbuild" a setting as a player but simply play in a setting, one could connect their character to that "someone else's world," and Fate does that just as well. If I were using Fate to play Eberron, then I could easily create "Dragonmarked Bastard Scion of House Cannith" as a high concept which plugs me directly into Khorvaire.

I see 1 major difference in how FATE (aspects) approaches this vs. D&D's (ideals, flaws and bonds)... the degree to which it is mandated as part of the game. In FATE aspects are mandatory and are a fundamental part of the game mechanics in play, which means there is no opting out of them and every player has to engage with them to the same degree (fully). D&D on the other hand treats it as an optional system which players can buy into fully or choose to ignore as they see fit. FATE is great if you have a group with total buy in and your method of setting building is great for players who want the experience of building the world (though I think it's a big mistake to assume that this is desired by all players or even a universally positive thing). However for a group that doesn't want to go deep into characterization and has no desire to build the world their stories take place in (or even a group that is mixed on the idea) FATE is pretty limiting and something like 5e, IMO, is a better fit since players can choose to buy in or not as much as they want.

EDIT: Though this is purely conjecture, I think this is a major reason games like FATE don't have the widespread appeal of something like D&D or more traditional rpg's. They require more from the players and IME, it's a requirement that makes it a less attractive option for some new players as well as casual players and even experienced players who don't necessarily fall into the Storytelling (and to a lesser extent the Actor) player types.

This sounds less like your conjecture and more like you wading into a pissing contest of why your dad can beat up my dad, so I don't find your "conjecture" in this regard particularly appropriate for this conversation.

To reiterate: my goal was simply to communicate what I appreciate about Fate as a system in regards to how character creation ties into worldbuilding.

 

[Imaro]

Not really. D&D 5e's inspiration mechanic feels like a half-baked afterthought vomited last minute onto the game. As you say below, this is a fundamental mechanic of Fate's game play. It has bite. It is an integral part of the character. It is in the forefront and not an out-of-sight, out-of-mind background.

In regards to "what about 5E inspiration?," you may enjoy reading Angry DM's article "11 Ways to Take the Suck Out of Inspiration in D&D."

Ok you were describing how aspects in FATE helped you build setting so the question was could D&D's bonds, ideals and flaws be used to world build in the way you described... I get that you don't like them (more than ever after this answer) but I don't think you really answered my question...

EDIT: Backgrounds are only out of sight out of mind if the player and GM choose to ignore them... which they could also do by never compelling them in FATE...

I hope you do not mind me asking, but are you fishing for a particular answer here? I ask because you earlier seemed to demonstrate proficient awareness of Fate. But IMO this question reads as an "But D&D 5E does this too!" Yet if one was sufficiently familiar with Fate, then it seems like one would readily spot the differences in these approaches and thus the question comes across as insincere. If I am reading you incorrectly, then I apologize in advance but this questioning seems incongruent with your earlier remarks on Fate. Also, I am aware that this is something of a non-answer, but I'm confused about where you are coming from here.

No I'm not fishing for a particular answer... I'm not asking about the mechanics because nothing in FATE's mechanics force an Aspect to be linked to worldbuilding. I was asking what do you think the negatives, if there are any, around using ideals, bonds and flaws in the same way you use aspects (extra questions, building the setting around the answer, etc.) to worldbuild.

But @Imaro, I did address this issue implictly earlier in my post.

Yes and I was hoping to get you to expound on why you believed that...

That's fine. I am speaking only about my own players, my own preferences, and my own experiences, which I made quite clear in my opening paragraph.

I never questioned whether you were making a general statement or not... but I assume in a discussion different experiences, thoughts, etc. around whatever is being discussed are fair game.

Furthermore, I don't think that many players conscientiously set about to accomplish or even enjoy the point in bold. But most players IME are interested and invested in who their characters are, even non-actors/storytellers. Most players don't regard this as worldbuilding at all, but as simply character creation. The actual worldbuilding implications often escape them. Yet even if one does not want to "worldbuild" a setting as a player but simply play in a setting, one could connect their character to that "someone else's world," and Fate does that just as well. If I were using Fate to play Eberron, then I could easily create "Dragonmarked Bastard Scion of House Cannith" as a high concept which plugs me directly into Khorvaire.

Yes and you could also do this by selecting the Dragonmarked feat for House Cannith and writing up backstory (or tie it into your ideals, flaws and bonds)... Given a GM and player who want this to be a part of the character and world equally in both systems...what, from a worldbuilding perspective, in FATE makes this "meatier" than other games where you say took the feat and tied it to one of your flaws, idelas or bonds?

This sounds less like your conjecture and more like you wading into a pissing contest of why your dad can beat up my dad, so I don't find your "conjecture" in this regard particularly appropriate for this conversation.

To reiterate: my goal was simply to communicate what I appreciate about Fate as a system in regards to how character creation ties into worldbuilding.

I'm going to step back here as I feel like I posted in good faith with comments and thoughts around your post even asking for further comment from you around ideas you presented... and it was taken as some kind of attack on you. I'm not sure how we discuss things if questioning and differing views are looked at in that way so I'll retract my questions at this point... though I will say when you claim a specific games mechanics create "meatier" worldbuilding (thus associating a value judgement with it) but don't really go into depth around why this is...you should expect people to question it, especially in what is supposed to be a discussion.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So the recent focus of the discussion has me thinking and I want to see what others may feel....

When it comes to Background Details such as Bonds or Connections and the like....whatever term may be used for a specific game...some games incorporate them into game mechanics, and others don't (or do so in a minimal way such as 5E's Inspiration).

Now, I've been playing with the same group of people since we were kids, and we long ago all started creating background details and connections to NPCs or other PCs for our characters without any rule telling us to do so. I think this is why I found the initial premise of the thread to be so questionable....my players have been involved in worldbuilding pretty heavily since the 2e D&D days. And I and other GMs in our group have always taken these character details into consideration when running a game.

It seems to me that there are three primary variations of how a game handles this. I'm sure that there are any number of slight variations on them, but the three i think seem to be the most prominent are:

1) The game leaves the determination of Background Details and how they impact play to the players and/or GM. (3E D&D)

2) The game includes these details in character generation, but the effect they have on play is nil or minimal. (5E D&D's inspiration)

3) The game includes these kinds of details in character generation, and then they can impact play in some mechanical way. (FATE)

What do you think the pros and cons of each approach might be? Which approach do you prefer? Are there other approaches to background details in addition to the three I've outlined above?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@AbdulAlhazred, I think you're skipping right to the end of that section, which does have the sort of stuff you mention (eg paying for experimental neural implants to get a skill).

But the default rules are for improvement by training: you can attempt a 8+ training roll; if it fails you can't try again for a year, if it succeeds you boost two skills by 1; at the end of 4 years you lose the boost unless you make another training roll for the same skills, at which point the +1 becomes permanent and you get another temporary +1; etc. (There are some bells and whistles around combat vs non-combat skills, but I'll let you look them up yourself unless you want me to elaborate.)

Alternatively, you can make the training roll to maintain a regimen of physical exercise which boosts all physical stats by 1 for 4 years; or you can make a training roll and pay a fee for correspondence material to raise your EDU if it is lower than your INT.

Finally, there is a rule for taking a 4 year sabbatical, to gain a single skill at rank 2 for a CR 70,000 cost.

I can report that my players did not find these to be wildly generous PC-improvement rules!

I don't recall anything about the 8+ rule, that's really in the original 1977 LBBs? That's the version I have, like printing #1 I'm pretty sure. hehe. I recall the sabbatical rule, and something about spending a fixed period of time practicing to get a +1, and then IIRC you had to successfully use the skill in play, something something something or lose the bonus after a year, something like that. Anyway, the 70k CR aside, the sabbatical rule is actually QUITE generous, as its very easy to get nothing or a single +1 to one skill in a 4 year enlistment (the later mercenary/high guard etc. year-by-year rules are more generous). The main limitation really is it has to be a NEW skill, you can't add +2 to an EXISTING skill. Still, level 2 in a skill makes you above average professional-grade competent, its nothing to sneeze at.

Anyway, we agree on the main point, that the 'progression' in Traveler is pretty much non-existent. Even if you go by the semi-official later 'experience' rules that allow gaining 0.1 skill points after a successful skill use (IIRC you have to fail a basic check as well, so more skilled people get less experience, its been a while) progression is so slow as to be almost meaningless. Most importantly characters don't get tougher. Its possible to buy into things like powered armor and whatnot, but that just tends to get you in trouble with villains equipped with PGMP-15s....