Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 7343021" data-attributes="member: 2656">Worldbuilding can be fun in and of itself, it can help certain playstyles and some players enjoy exploring gameworlds created by other people.Overly rigid worldbuilding that doesn't leave room for PCs to breathe, and worldbuilding that isn't appreciated by players the way the creator would like can be issues. It's my experience that most players care a lot less about the particulars of the gameworld than the creator. Occasionally there are fans, but these often focus on small parts of the setting or particular npcs or plots.It's some time ago now, when roleplaying was a bit more primitive, but I remember a game where player enthusiasm for some proactive plans was casually crushed in a tone-deaf way because the player plans didn't fit the rigid preconceptions of the referee, and the referee was unwilling to attempt a compromise with the players for fear of revealing some of his plots or secret backstory. Player unhappiness grew until the most frustrated players, angry that they weren't allowed to affect the gameworld in to them reasonable ways, attempted some in-game vandalism to test the referee it they would be permitted to do it.  and frankly to annoy him. So some parts of the gameworld burned down, the referee got annoyed and the game ended in general disarray.I don't think this was down to mere bad refereeing/playing, everyone was making an honest effort, it's just that the older GM advice was IMO often awful. Ridiculously adversarial, needlessly secretive, there was plenty of advice that hindered or prevented clear communication between players and referee.There's a particular issue with worldbuilding where the referee is the creator, in that the referee is typically highly invested in the gameworld and it's details, and  the players are less so, sometimes a lot less. The players are also the audience for the gameworld, and the critics of it. Players rejecting plots or gameworld elements for whatever reason can be hard on the referee, and some referees being human overreact and take revenge on the players who didn''t appreciate their wonderful creation. It's really difficult for referees to maintain objectivity in the face of player plans they don't understand or don't agree with. I know I've failed at this a number of times, and I'm willing to talk to my players out of character to try and figure things out. Communication gaps because of concerns of secrecy and meta-gaming can make things a lot worse, IMO.In the old days PCs were simple, and if a PC died it was quick to put a new one together. New characters often died early, so many didn't bother with a backstory until they had survived the early meat-grinder levels. So referees could kill off annoying or problematic characters without raising too many eyebrows.Times have changed for many people, and PCs are more complex, starting with goals and backstory. PCs have become more survivable, and in more modern systems can have more agency, or different kinds of agency to that provided by earlier systems. In many game groups it's no longer acceptable to merely kill off PCs who in the referees eyes are wandering off the reservation. Just like referees can be attached to worldbuilding, players can be attached to PC backstory and goals, even when they don't quite match, or turn out to be totally incompatible some time later on.Worldbuilding can interfere with players who are invested in their PC's backstory and goals. The PC backstory and goals can be inadvertently modified, twisted or ruined by the details of the gameworld, especially when there are big campaign secrets lurking in the background. This can destroy a player's fun in the game, especially when the referee refuses to discuss such issues, or make accommodations.</blockquote>

Verification