What is *worldbuilding* for?

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Sigh, some people are just strange. Why do you have to defy my easy classifications? Life is so much simpler when you can reduce things to a few pigeon holes! Just look at our American Politics (oops, verbotten topic!).

 

[pemerton]

Sigh, some people are just strange. Why do you have to defy my easy classifications? Life is so much simpler when you can reduce things to a few pigeon holes! Just look at our American Politics (oops, verbotten topic!).

I'll skip the verboten and say - I would like to be a good wargamer, but lack the patience. My favourite boardgame is backgammon: I can do the maths in my head pretty easily, it plays quickly, and isn't too taxing!

But wargaming requires the patience to build up a position, act without recklessness, etc. I suck at that!

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'll skip the verboten and say - I would like to be a good wargamer, but lack the patience. My favourite boardgame is backgammon: I can do the maths in my head pretty easily, it plays quickly, and isn't too taxing!

But wargaming requires the patience to build up a position, act without recklessness, etc. I suck at that!

You have strange ideas on what wargaming requires.

 

[pemerton]

I posted a report of a short In a Wicked Age session I GMed on Sunday. It seems relevant to this thread.

 

[Manbearcat]

@pemerton , I'll check out your thread at some point in the future and post some comments. I haven't played In a Wicked Age, so that is very interesting (and obviously VB is my favorite designer).

I just logged on briefly because I had a thought and this seemed like a decent enough repository for a game premise.

In a Points of Light sort of world where humanoidkind (I guess that would be the word?) is pressed on all sides by an encroaching darkness (a la 4e or Beyond the Wall or Torchbearer or Blades in the Dark), a despotic power-broker and apex predator of the magnitude of an Elder/Ancient Dragons demanding monthly tribute (or something not too overwhelmingly punitive) becomes a stabilizing force for a region. It is by no means "the perfect good", but its "good enough" in light of the alternative.

Its slaying (by adventurers perhaps) or disappearance (perhaps a pilgrimage, perhaps ascendance) creates a vacuum of power and profound destabilization to the local ecosystem. The disorderly, insidious darkness begins its encroach anew.

Blades in the Dark PCs depends upon this paradigm (because you're looking to climb the ladder and destabilization is inevitable collateral...and mostly good). Meanwhile, PCs in other games may (for the sake of the greatest good), prefer for the status quo to persist.

I guess I was just thinking that a Points of Light game like default 4e, Torchbearer, and Beyond the Wall depends on this "local stabilization through protection racket by overwhelmingly powerful agent" paradigm being untenable.

 

[pemerton]

I guess I was just thinking that a Points of Light game like default 4e, Torchbearer, and Beyond the Wall depends on this "local stabilization through protection racket by overwhelmingly powerful agent" paradigm being untenable.

My take would be that, for default (heroic) 4e, the "good enough" idea is suspect. So heroic overthrow of said protection racket isn't destabilising, it's liberating and allows a better form of life to emerge.

As far as the practicalities of play are concerned, there is a lot of room for the GM to punish the players in terms of that outcome if care isn't taken. In my own 4e game, where both the drow and the duergar have been liberated, it's mostly been a background thing, but I am mindful of the need to preserve this as a victory for the PCs (especially the case of the drow).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@pemerton , I'll check out your thread at some point in the future and post some comments. I haven't played In a Wicked Age, so that is very interesting (and obviously VB is my favorite designer).

I just logged on briefly because I had a thought and this seemed like a decent enough repository for a game premise.

In a Points of Light sort of world where humanoidkind (I guess that would be the word?) is pressed on all sides by an encroaching darkness (a la 4e or Beyond the Wall or Torchbearer or Blades in the Dark), a despotic power-broker and apex predator of the magnitude of an Elder/Ancient Dragons demanding monthly tribute (or something not too overwhelmingly punitive) becomes a stabilizing force for a region. It is by no means "the perfect good", but its "good enough" in light of the alternative.

Its slaying (by adventurers perhaps) or disappearance (perhaps a pilgrimage, perhaps ascendance) creates a vacuum of power and profound destabilization to the local ecosystem. The disorderly, insidious darkness begins its encroach anew.

Blades in the Dark PCs depends upon this paradigm (because you're looking to climb the ladder and destabilization is inevitable collateral...and mostly good). Meanwhile, PCs in other games may (for the sake of the greatest good), prefer for the status quo to persist.

I guess I was just thinking that a Points of Light game like default 4e, Torchbearer, and Beyond the Wall depends on this "local stabilization through protection racket by overwhelmingly powerful agent" paradigm being untenable.

I don't follow your final point there. It wouldn't seem like 4e (I only know the two OSR games by repute) should have this limitation. It would be easy to see how the remnants of "The Empire of Nerath" could be ruled by, say, the Red Dragon Infernus (a survivor of Arkhosia who reverted to his evil chaotic nature). The ancient wyrm crawls out of the darkness, carbonizing gnolls to the left and right, and then taking up residence in what was once the provincial Temple of Erathis! Oops, we have a new overlord. Nobody really wants to mess with that. One village defies him, and he simply withdraws his protection from it... bye bye.

This one would certainly put the PCs in a tricky situation. They could of course simply be brutal lieutenants, but even THEN its easy to imagine putting them in a difficult spot pretty easily. If they have an ounce of integrity, or serious ambitions of their own, then things are going to get sticky before too long.

And of course, its likely to be an unstable arrangement over time. Pretty much all brutal absolutist states are pretty unstable, but it could still last for human generations.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Hey sorry it took so long for me to reply but I was away from the interwebs for the holiday weekend here.

To answer your question I eventually ended up talking about both. You are correct in that originally I was speaking about players that are just not invested in roleplaying and/or story to the degree that games such as FATE require one to be (Where require means to get the most out of it). In the 5e DMG they list 7 areas in the game that can engage players (and yes I realize there may be other areas but that's kind of tangential to my overall point)... Acting, exploring, instigating, fighting, optimizing, problem solving & storytelling. Games like FATE, MHRP, etc. seem to prioritize storytelling and to a lesser extent acting as primary experiences to the extent that many of these other areas are only mildly catered to or not catered to at all. For me and my group I'd rather have a game that doesn't necessarily push one of these aspects (even if it does that by not strongly supporting any one particular experience) than to have a game that does. My players have a wide variety of what they enjoy and honestly. This is where I tend to differ with those people who feel a game has to have a defined and precise playstyle in order to be a good game. Sometimes a game that doesn't necessarily focus on or push a playstyle is a better fit for a group with diverse likes and expectations for fun than a game with a narrower focus or more defined playstyle.

To bring this back around to new/casual players... I have a casual player in my group, he plays a champion fighter most of the time, loves combat and really isn't down to act except in the most cursory sense and is more about adventure than creating a "story". FATE would not be a good fit for him because it pushes and focuses in on the experiences he findsa the least enjoyable in rpg's... but we enjoy playing with him, and with D&D those who want deep characterization can do so by stressing and engaging their ideals, flaws and bonds... while he plays his grim and gruff warrior with a mysterious (mostly blank...lol) history and neither really affects the fun of the other.

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] , let me wander around my head aloud for a minute. This is kind of where my brain was going:

* I was thinking about the parallels of Blades in the Dark and the Mexican Drug Wars particularly in the states of Sinaloa and Durango (which has also spread plenty elsewhere). I was thinking about how when a vacuum of power emerges (where a cartel which has dominated the drug trade without rival in a particular area suddenly has the head of its snake cut off or is defaced/defanged), the place goes from a (very) relative order and placidity to an eruption of sustained barbarism, violence, and destabilization. The locals are besieged emotionally, physically, and economically due to the cartel warfare. That is how you end up with the extreme transformation of Ciudad Juarez in only a few short years.

* I was thinking of parallels in Blades in the Dark where Bluecoats, Council-members, and Magistrates can be bought off in order to (a) get in on the action and (b) "keep the peace (status quo)" by ensuring that the dominance hierarchy of a certain place remains intact (and the eruption of violence/destabilization via a power vacuum doesn't emerge).

Blades in the Dark's premise, thematic and machanicaly machinery depends on these tropes.

So here is what I meant by the below:

I guess I was just thinking that a Points of Light game like default 4e, Torchbearer, and Beyond the Wall depends on this "local stabilization through protection racket by overwhelmingly powerful agent" paradigm being untenable.

Conversely, 4e's thematic impetus depends on the above paradigm being flat untenable.

The Dragon's (or whatever stand-in) protection racket compared to the encroaching darkness (due to the vacuum of power) MUSTN'T yield the citizenry or the heroes doing the math and coming up with "its better this way." The fallout of the Dragon's despotism must be punitive enough (when compared to the alternative bad) that it emboldens rebellion. Otherwise, the entire impetus for the sort of romantic heroism that 4e pushes toward becomes less charged (or it loses its charge completely).

With Torchbearer and Beyond the Wall, the desperation and related impetus for moving beyond the sanctity of the city's walls into the foreboding, deep, dark wilds in becomes rather (but not fully) muted because the Dragon (as happens with overwhelming apex predators/power-brokers) will have driven out that encroaching darkness, thereby artificially expanding the local (and solely relevant) "Point of Light." The important themes of desperation and claustrophobia become subdued.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] , let me wander around my head aloud for a minute. This is kind of where my brain was going:

* I was thinking about the parallels of Blades in the Dark and the Mexican Drug Wars particularly in the states of Sinaloa and Durango (which has also spread plenty elsewhere). I was thinking about how when a vacuum of power emerges (where a cartel which has dominated the drug trade without rival in a particular area suddenly has the head of its snake cut off or is defaced/defanged), the place goes from a (very) relative order and placidity to an eruption of sustained barbarism, violence, and destabilization. The locals are besieged emotionally, physically, and economically due to the cartel warfare. That is how you end up with the extreme transformation of Ciudad Juarez in only a few short years.

* I was thinking of parallels in Blades in the Dark where Bluecoats, Council-members, and Magistrates can be bought off in order to (a) get in on the action and (b) "keep the peace (status quo)" by ensuring that the dominance hierarchy of a certain place remains intact (and the eruption of violence/destabilization via a power vacuum doesn't emerge).

Blades in the Dark's premise, thematic and machanicaly machinery depends on these tropes.

So here is what I meant by the below:



Conversely, 4e's thematic impetus depends on the above paradigm being flat untenable.

The Dragon's (or whatever stand-in) protection racket compared to the encroaching darkness (due to the vacuum of power) MUSTN'T yield the citizenry or the heroes doing the math and coming up with "its better this way." The fallout of the Dragon's despotism must be punitive enough (when compared to the alternative bad) that it emboldens rebellion. Otherwise, the entire impetus for the sort of romantic heroism that 4e pushes toward becomes less charged (or it loses its charge completely).

With Torchbearer and Beyond the Wall, the desperation and related impetus for moving beyond the sanctity of the city's walls into the foreboding, deep, dark wilds in becomes rather (but not fully) muted because the Dragon (as happens with overwhelming apex predators/power-brokers) will have driven out that encroaching darkness, thereby artificially expanding the local (and solely relevant) "Point of Light." The important themes of desperation and claustrophobia become subdued.

OK.

I'm not sure I concur with your analysis, but these are possibilities. I think, particularly in a narrative focused play of 4e, you could easily be the rebels. Yeah, the Dragon is strong and maybe he protects everyone even while he extracts his price. Is that price REALLY worth paying? Is it possible for people to stand on their own behind real heroes, good guys? If not is there any point in making a distinction between the 'point of light' and the darkness outside? There are a ton of questions like this which can be dredged up out of this scenario virtually effortlessly and used to drive that story.

Now, I understand that you see 4e as pretty much a "you're a hero" sort of black and white kind of a game that doesn't do much gray. I think its reasonable to take that position. The game makes little provision for questionable characters, but it does make SOME provision. I think its at least possible.

I'm not sure I can really address the other two games, although I think a similar analysis might be possible. The very impetus to go 'outside the wall' might be BECAUSE you need to find a way to fix what is INSIDE. Its a bit different spin from what I suspect is intended, but games are flexible...