Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7355856" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I don't know what you hope to analyze if you are not determining why something may be useful, or why others may prefer the thing to other options. If I want to analyze "The Godfather", I'm not going to dismiss the opinions of those who like the film. Or with those who may disagree with my opinion of the film. Since you asked "what is worldbuilding for?" and your offered answer seems to be "solely to limit player agency in authorship as it relates to action declaration", I am trying to offer a counterpoint. It doesn't? I would expect it to. I'm sure we can provide an example where it does not, but I think most often there would be setting elements at play in worldbuilding.For instance, let's say that the elements the players have brought to the game with their characters lend themselves to planar adventures. Perhaps as GM I decide to use the Blood War as a backdrop for the campaign. That is a setting element. Perhaps I as the GM come up with my own version of the Blood War, which changes the standard lore related to that concept. Or perhaps I come up with something similar, but totally new...the Exarch Wars. The elements of this story would undoubtedly affect the setting and at least some of the action in play. Here is the full comment you clipped to quote me, and I think this explains things. I value player agency. I do not feel it needs to be ubiquitous. I also think that your definition of player agency is very specific, and that your game requires a loss of other kinds of player agency which I likely value more. I would not say that GM Backstory has "no implications" for player agency over the content of the fiction. I simply said that it isn't a case that it must have implications. Meaning that it may be used to deny player action declarations without any kind of check, but that it doesn't have to be used that way. I don't think that allowing the players to author elements of the fiction as part of action declaration is always a good idea. So I wouldn't always allow it. I think it's rife for abuse, especially if the players are playing as advocates of the characters....where they are doing what's best based on what they think their character would want, rather than what would make the most compelling story. This is why I think that which game you are playing and what the expectations for play are prior to starting are such a big factor. In a game like Fiasco, the goal is specifically not for the players to have their characters succeed. But in a game like D&D, that is the case. So to use your example of the unbribeable guard....in most instances I'd simply set up the scene and the challenge it involves. The PCs need to gain entry into the Baron's castle. So they can try and find a way to sneak in, or they can try to bribe a guard, or they can fight their way in, or whatever means they come up with. I generally don't want to limit the players in how they approach a challenge. In this sense, I leave it entirely up to them. However, sometimes, I think it is quite useful and interesting to remove one or more means at their disposal. To take away some choice to see what they will do then. I like to put the characters into situations that are difficult....so I'll put them in a situation where they cannot win a fight....so what do they do? Sneaking in is impossible....what do you do? Sounds just like Framing to me. Would you agree? So in that sense, if I thought that removing the ability to bribe guards would create a compelling challenge which also made sense for the story....perhaps the PCs are on Mechanus, and they cannot bribe the Modron sentries they encounter.....then I'll do so. I think I just approach these situations far less strictly than you. I don't tend to treat them in absolute terms such as "I will never remove any player agency". I do think that is an element. I don't think most people were disagreeing with you about that so much as how you presented it, which was rather dismissive. And when people pointed out it was dismissive, you again dismissed their concerns by saying you had no idea how it could be construed as dismissive. I also think you very much implied that it was the only thing you could see it was useful for, rather than simply one thing. So yes, I would say that some elements of worldbuilding is the PCs taking some kind of action, which then indicates that they learn some bit of information. The thief searching the door for traps will possibly reveal the presence of a trap, which the GM will then describe and perhaps offer some further option to disarm the trap. I would also think that this may apply to lore, and research of historical elements in the setting. Who were the combatants in the Dawn War? Who is Dendar the Night Serpent? Was Miska the Wolf Spider an ally or enemy of the Queen of Chaos? Or secrets of NPCs. Perhaps the PCs can do some schmoozing to try and find out what they can about the Baron, and they learn he has a thing for the girls at a certain brothel, and visits it once a week. Things of that nature. What I would not advocate is the idea that GM Backstory is only this. That this information can only be used in such a way. In this sense, I don't see how it's different than the setting information chosen by the GM and/or players. If they want to play in a Greyhawk Campaign, then there are certain elements that will possibly come up in play. I don't think the choice of Greyhawk for a game is any more or less limiting than other elements that the GM may have determined in advance. Especially in the instance when the GM has taken the players' wants and choices and incorporated them into what he has in mind. It also, to me, seems to serve largely the same purpose as your Framing. If Framing is the GM taking elements of the setting based on the characters' stated goals and players' areas of interest, and creating a scene that requires a choice.....I really don't see how, in this regard, its purpose is so different from GM Backstory. Again....perhaps you do not like the technique because, as with any, it can be used poorly, and to you the risk is not worth the reward. But I don't think it's unclear what it may offer. So I'll ask again....do you think there is any purpose for it other than your initial assessment? Has your mind changed at all over the course of this thread?</blockquote>

Verification