What is *worldbuilding* for?

[AbdulAlhazred]

First @pemerton ... just wanted to say in your recent posts you summed up what I was (trying to say??) saying earlier and apparently were able to avoid accusations of disingenuous behavior/posting. Perhaps I'm not expressing my thoughts correctly but thanks for re-stating it (in a more clear manner??).

My biggest issue with players like this and games like FATE (which for the record I do play and enjoy) is that they don't want to do the lengthy character creation that is involved in creating a character for said game (especially the more involved older versions of FATE). Either they haven't and don't enjoy thinking in that much depth about a character they haven't played yet or they just want to get to playing the game. And yes I know FATE can do the design a character during play method but IME, this becomes an exercise where I as the GM, often through prompting (Hey there's a locked door did you want to make one of your skills lockpicking?) am basically building their character for them.

I think that it takes a particular (uncommon??) type of player to get a game like FATE or MHRP to play well... the group I have now, some of them would be really great in FATE and would really enjoy it but the other half would probably make the quality of the game drop... When I see mechanics like D&D's Inspiration+ Ideals/Boons/Flaws I like it because it allows me to play to those things with my players who enjoy and are up for that type of roleplaying while ignoring it or only bringing it to bear rarely for those that aren't as invested. I prefer it because both sides get what they want vs. half the group not playing or the game quality suffering.

I hear you guys, but FOR ME, the uncommon player type is the one who is actually this disengaged and is desiring to play strongly enough to keep coming back week after week. I find it hard to accept that this is some significant constituency within RPGing, or that it somehow accounts in any appreciable way for the continued existence and prevalence of D&D.

Now, what I did with people who were really shaky on playing an RPG, but seemed to genuinely have enough potential interest to work with, is to play a very simple and highly narrative, story now sort of game. I generally use the PACE rules for this. https://www.evilhat.com/pace/ It takes about 1 minute to generate a character, is entirely genre agnostic, and takes about 2 minutes to learn to play (its a bit harder to learn to GM as it really just assumes you know how and gives you simple tools, but its really no more challenging than DW).

If the player is really specifically into fantasy, which is kinda common, then DW might be an alternative choice. Its very simple to learn and easy enough to play.

Both of these are pretty narrativist systems which lend themselves well to a zero myth kind of game. Someone who's got enough interest to keep playing will master them and have fun pretty quickly, and they really don't require mastery, as they're more about story than skilled play.

 

[pemerton]

OK, I've GMed for long enough to have 'seen everything'. So, yeah, once or twice in 40 years I saw a guy that hung out with the other players and nominally had a character, and actually kept coming back week after week.

<snip>

What is MUCH more likely is you have some people who, for various reasons, are not quite fully engaged. OFTEN IT IS BECAUSE A D&D STYLE GAME ACTUALLY DOESN'T INTEREST THEM! These are people that are prime candidates for something like a Story Now game!

I hear you guys, but FOR ME, the uncommon player type is the one who is actually this disengaged and is desiring to play strongly enough to keep coming back week after week. I find it hard to accept that this is some significant constituency within RPGing, or that it somehow accounts in any appreciable way for the continued existence and prevalence of D&D.

My conjecture as to how common this sort of player is is based on a mix of observation (circa 20 years out of date now - I'm thinking of back when I use to hang out with the University RPG club) plus trying to make sense of posts I see on these boards.

For me, it's similar to people I knew (also back in those Uni days) who really seemed to want to play 500, but showed no interest in actually learning how to bid well, how to follow the play, etc.

Whether it's a virtue of a game to be amenable to such players is something I'll leave for others to debate - but I do think that D&D suits them in a way that some other systems don't (just as 500 allows a competent partner to carry them, whereas in bridge, if they won the bidding and so had to play the hand, they'd just be hosed).

Whether other styles of RPGing would suit them is also a question I don't have an answer for - I think it's possible, but I'm not sure a relatively intricate system like FATE or even 4e is where I'd go to for that.

Both of these [PACE, DW] are pretty narrativist systems which lend themselves well to a zero myth kind of game. Someone who's got enough interest to keep playing will master them and have fun pretty quickly, and they really don't require mastery, as they're more about story than skilled play.

I think the contrast (for me, at least - I can't speak for [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]) is not between "setting/GM-driven" and "no myth", but the extent to which a player has to engage the system with any degree of sophistication. A pretty light system (eg Prince Valiant, or something even stripped back from that; or HeroQuest revised using only simple contest resolution) might well be fine for that sort of player, especially one-on-one or in a small group of friends.

 

[Aldarc]

First @pemerton ... just wanted to say in your recent posts you summed up what I was (trying to say??) saying earlier and apparently were able to avoid accusations of disingenuous behavior/posting. Perhaps I'm not expressing my thoughts correctly but thanks for re-stating it (in a more clear manner??).

It's cool. I misread your tone. You clarified your position. And so I dropped that in the reply quotes.

My biggest issue with players like this and games like FATE (which for the record I do play and enjoy) is that they don't want to do the lengthy character creation that is involved in creating a character for said game (especially the more involved older versions of FATE). Either they haven't and don't enjoy thinking in that much depth about a character they haven't played yet or they just want to get to playing the game. And yes I know FATE can do the design a character during play method but IME, this becomes an exercise where I as the GM, often through prompting (Hey there's a locked door did you want to make one of your skills lockpicking?) am basically building their character for them.

Here, I would agree. Fate is not really the ideal game for a reactive set of players, at least not without some proactive gamers to carry the group. It does assume that the protagonists are fairly proactive. Though here I do find that this sometimes requires mentoring players to learn proactive gaming because a lot of gaming/GMing styles seemed to foster a more reactive one. (Not necessarily in your games, but overall.) There is nothing wrong with reactive gaming.

When I see mechanics like D&D's Inspiration+ Ideals/Boons/Flaws I like it because it allows me to play to those things with my players who enjoy and are up for that type of roleplaying while ignoring it or only bringing it to bear rarely for those that aren't as invested. I prefer it because both sides get what they want vs. half the group not playing or the game quality suffering.

I just wish that it had been better designed. Again, less Background-tied. It would not even need to be in the Foreground, as per Fate. Inspiration could just be Ground. Your race, class, and background could all have ideals/bonds/flaws. Maybe you pick one ideal, bond, flaw total from all available options, or maybe you pick one ideal from each grouping for three total ideals, etc. Perhaps you would start out with an Inspiration pool. There is far more that you could do with Inspiration. But as it is, it's kinda a dud for both Player Type Xs and Player Type Ys.

I do agree with [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] that the disengaged players are a rarity in my games. But even then, I have found that many of said players are often engaged with who their characters are. Some have an amazing investment of character, but the group knows that the player just came home from a closing shift at a department store and dealt with stupid customers and coworkers the entire day and so their "disengagement" is not about the game but psychological recuperation. Some just want to play the fighter that hits things, and that's fine. I have also experienced a number of players, including some of my current ones, who are somewhat disengaged in play from D&D but suddenly come into their own when dropped into Fate or other game systems.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think there is a difference between a player that’s not as invested in roleplaying deeply, and a disengaged player. I feel like [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] is speaking about the first, but others are taking it to mean the second.

I have players who have varying degrees of desire to really examine their character. Some are all about portrayjng their character. Others are more about the challenge of the game and its encounters. They make a character, give him some basic traits and a bit of history and then not a lot more than that. Most of my players are a healthy mix.

I wouldn’t describe any of my players as disengaged.

So I could be wrong.. [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] can correct me if so...but I don’t think he’s talking about the edge case scenario you guys are describing.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, I've GMed for long enough to have 'seen everything'. So, yeah, once or twice in 40 years I saw a guy that hung out with the other players and nominally had a character, and actually kept coming back week after week. I had one guy that was SORT OF like that in a 4e campaign. He was actually pretty interested in playing, at times, but he ran a bow ranger and did pretty much just react to things. However, he also slacked off and finally just stopped showing up, although he kept SAYING he was 'coming this week' for a year! lol. My point is, when people are REALLY so disengaged that they aren't even into it enough to RP at all, they almost invariably don't stick around. I think its a corner-case, basically.

I've seen this a few times as well, but in my experience it's more due to shyness. The player is enjoying the game and wants to say and do things, but lacks the confidence to engage. The son of one of the players that I've been gaming with for the last 34 years joined our group some years ago. He sat there and just rolled dice in combat, doing little else. I could tell he was interested, but he didn't say or do anything. I have a few players with strong personalities and sometimes they would tell him to do this or that, and he often would. Other times they just did things as their PCs and my friend's son sat there.

I didn't let that go on for long. I would halt things and turn to my friend's son and ask him directly what he wanted to do. Sometimes he would say something that the more experience players would cringe at, and more than once I had to step in and stop one of the other players from taking over in those instances and telling him what he should do. When he did tell me what he wanted his PC to do, I ran with it and he had a good time. Over time he would say more and more, answering me more quickly when I came to him, and eventually stepping in on his own to do things. As his confidence grew, he created personalities and quirks for his PCs and now he's right at home with everyone else and is a proactive player.

His was not the first case I saw like that, either. Out of the 4 or 5 I met over the years, I got 2 of them to open up and play their hearts out. It doesn't work for everyone, but it's very rewarding when it does.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My conjecture as to how common this sort of player is is based on a mix of observation (circa 20 years out of date now - I'm thinking of back when I use to hang out with the University RPG club) plus trying to make sense of posts I see on these boards.

The most common case is the old proverbial 'gamer wife', or 'my best friend' or something like that, where the person is not REALLY inclined to play purely on their own steam, but comes and plays in an often fairly desultory way. They may well enjoy the game, but they aren't 'into' playing. They won't master complicated rules, and may play as almost an NPC sidekick type of character, or something like that. I find that usually you CAN engage them, and to those people it isn't really that important how the game works, they aren't picky or looking for some certain experience. Maybe some types of play are going to demand too much of them, I don't dismiss that idea, but generally if you play DW or PACE they'll do as well in that IME as with D&D. You might avoid FATE, BW, or Cortex+ Heroic, maybe, but you might be surprised. Every case is a little different anyway.

For me, it's similar to people I knew (also back in those Uni days) who really seemed to want to play 500, but showed no interest in actually learning how to bid well, how to follow the play, etc.

Again though, my guess is their motive was probably hanging with their SO or something like that.

Whether it's a virtue of a game to be amenable to such players is something I'll leave for others to debate - but I do think that D&D suits them in a way that some other systems don't (just as 500 allows a competent partner to carry them, whereas in bridge, if they won the bidding and so had to play the hand, they'd just be hosed).

I think they're more likely to be exposed to D&D. I'm far from convinced it is the best fit. Again, my spin on D&D is that it is by far the game with the greatest replay value. Gygax hit on a formula that was guaranteed to keep his players coming back week after week. He was a smart guy. D&D is VERY gamist, particularly in Dave/Gary's formulation of it. Even 5e, heck even 4e, still stick PRETTY CLOSE to that formula, and its HARD to find another game which does (aside from in more recent times games which are effectively D&D clones like PF and 13a).

Whether other styles of RPGing would suit them is also a question I don't have an answer for - I think it's possible, but I'm not sure a relatively intricate system like FATE or even 4e is where I'd go to for that.

I think the contrast (for me, at least - I can't speak for @Imaro) is not between "setting/GM-driven" and "no myth", but the extent to which a player has to engage the system with any degree of sophistication. A pretty light system (eg Prince Valiant, or something even stripped back from that; or HeroQuest revised using only simple contest resolution) might well be fine for that sort of player, especially one-on-one or in a small group of friends.

Right, that's why I brought up PACE (which if you read it is about a 5 page game, total), or Dungeon World, which is QUITE feasible for players to play with essentially full mastery of the game after reading 3 pages of character sheet and moves (and they can just wing it and learn the moves by playing, its really a very simple game to play).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there is a difference between a player that’s not as invested in roleplaying deeply, and a disengaged player. I feel like @Imaro is speaking about the first, but others are taking it to mean the second.

I have players who have varying degrees of desire to really examine their character. Some are all about portrayjng their character. Others are more about the challenge of the game and its encounters. They make a character, give him some basic traits and a bit of history and then not a lot more than that. Most of my players are a healthy mix.

I wouldn’t describe any of my players as disengaged.

So I could be wrong.. @Imaro can correct me if so...but I don’t think he’s talking about the edge case scenario you guys are describing.

Yeah, I think it is possible to be a 'gamer' and not so much an RPer. Often those are people who ARE actually quite engaged, they play around with the rules and whatnot, and may be quite into aspects of the game like combat or whatnot, but just don't have a real desire to develop or examine their character's motives much.

I'm not entirely convinced this class of player is entirely ill-suited to narrative focused games though. I think if you can get them committed to a fairly simple and straightforward character concept, then they don't have to work hard at tying it to the story. "I was the only survivor of my clan, and wandered alone in the wilderness for 5 years. Everything is scary and out to get me. I fight first and ask questions later!" That's a perfectly viable, if potentially shallow, sort of character concept for a narrative type of game. You can invoke your character's 'traits' or whatever the given system has, and just whack things! The GM might challenge your belief, for sure, but you can always just double down and stick to your guns if you don't really want to dig into it.

 

[pemerton]

I have players who have varying degrees of desire to really examine their character. Some are all about portrayjng their character. Others are more about the challenge of the game and its encounters. They make a character, give him some basic traits and a bit of history and then not a lot more than that.

Yeah, I think it is possible to be a 'gamer' and not so much an RPer. Often those are people who ARE actually quite engaged, they play around with the rules and whatnot, and may be quite into aspects of the game like combat or whatnot, but just don't have a real desire to develop or examine their character's motives much.

Well, yeah, if someone likes the wargaming aspect of D&D (or some similar system), it stands to reason that they may be less into non-wargaming systems!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, yeah, if someone likes the wargaming aspect of D&D (or some similar system), it stands to reason that they may be less into non-wargaming systems!

I like both wargaming AND RPing/Storytelling, so I had to invent a game for that

 

[pemerton]

I like both wargaming AND RPing/Storytelling, so I had to invent a game for that

I'm a bad wargamer but I do like a fair bit of system - hence RM, 4e, BW, etc!