Quote from: Zalman;1099393Unless your campaign is a full-on railroad, "shared world creation" is the de facto default, intended mode of traditional RPGs.

No, it's not:

- D&D's default mode of play is using one of it's official pre-existing settings, or a GM-created one.  
- Vampire's default mode of play is using the official pre-existing setting that comes in the book.
- Warhammer FRP's idem
- Runequest idem
- GURPS idem
etc

The only Traditional game cited so far to use a formal process of shared world creation is Beyond the Wall, and even this is arguably not very traditional.

Otherwise, please Zalman, cite Traditional games that use shared world creation as the default mode of play.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1099390No.  On the off chance that this is a language barrier, I'll spell it out:  You made the initial claim.  It is incumbent on you to provide the evidence.  You have provided none.

Untrue. I provided a somewhat sizeable amount of pretty popular trad games that come with built-in settings, which serves at least as weak indication that my claim is true.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1099390Therefore a flat contradiction of your point is sufficient until that changes.

Sufficient for what though? Scientific dispute? Or a conversation on an internet hobbyist forum? What's the proper standard here and to what end? If neither party can prove their viewpoints, why is exchanging those viewpoints and exchanging experiences not enough?

Quote from: Itachi;1099391Let's be practical here: what Traditional games present "shared world creation" as the default, intended mode of play?

If we can't find at least a dozen ones, then Alexander's point is spot on.

I'd like to add another argument: was Ars Magica's setting-handling a Unique Selling Point (USP) for the game? I think it was. Certainly not the only one, I bought it back then to study what it's doing with magic, but it probably was. A way to differentiate yourself from competitors.

Quote from: Zalman;1099393Unless your campaign is a full-on railroad, "shared world creation" is the de facto default, intended mode of traditional RPGs. Characters have autonomy, the do stuff, make friends and enemies, raid castles, build castles, raise armies, create magic items, create spells. And on and on. All of which happens in the game world, and is part and parcel of "world creation".

Drawing an arbitrary line between PC actions and every other action in the world, and designating the latter only as "world creation", is just plain circular.

That is not what I was referring to though. If you look further up in the thread you will find that I affirmed that as part of background generation, players might make up, for example, a rival PC in a trad game. It's a background element that the PC would already know. What is more unusual, though, is shared world creation that you find in story games, where the GM elicits setting elements that the PCs may have not encountered yet or have no knowledge of, especially whole regions (which in a lot of trad games would be defined by the built-in setting anyway, compare "How is this land that you came from? Where is it on the map? Tell us some quirks of it's people?" further above).

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099398I'd like to add another argument: was Ars Magica's setting-handling a Unique Selling Point (USP) for the game? I think it was. Certainly not the only one, I bought it back then to study what it's doing with magic, but it probably was. A way to differentiate yourself from competitors.

Makes sense. If I remember right it's setting-creation comes from Covenant creation, which comes from Troupe Play(TM).

Quote from: Itachi;1099394No, it's not:

- D&D's default mode of play is using one of it's official pre-existing settings, or a GM-created one.  
- Vampire's default mode of play is using the official pre-existing setting that comes in the book.
- Warhammer FRP's idem
- Runequest idem
- GURPS idem
etc

The only Traditional game cited so far to use a formal process of shared world creation is Beyond the Wall, and even this is arguably not very traditional.

Otherwise, please Zalman, cite Traditional games that use shared world creation as the default mode of play.

If you believe that the world is only "created" prior to game play, then we will not find common ground. In my experience, game worlds are living entities created both before and during the game, with the latter aspect making much more difference to the state of the "world" as it is experienced by the players, and driven primarily by player choices.

Just because a "pre-existing" setting is used as a starting point, doesn't mean that players aren't intended to help create the game world. Every RPG I've ever played includes player choice as a core concept, and every choice a player makes shapes the world.

Quote from: Zalman;1099406If you believe that the world is only "created" prior to game play, then we will not find common ground. In my experience, game worlds are living entities created both before and during the game, with the latter aspect making much more difference to the state of the "world" as it is experienced by the players, and driven primarily by player choices.

Just because a "pre-existing" setting is used as a starting point, doesn't mean that players aren't intended to help create the game world. Every RPG I've ever played includes player choice as a core concept, and every choice a player makes shapes the world.

Again, there has been no disagreement about the fact that it's fairly frequent for players in trad games to make up limited setting content. See #51. That is not the controversy. I am challenging whether it's typical for players, for example, to make up a country and its culture. A nearby country at that, to which the campaign might shift. That is the type of shared world creation we have been talking about since #51 and #52. That is the context.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099407I am challenging whether it's typical for players, for example, to make up a country and its culture. A nearby country at that, to which the campaign might shift. That is the type of shared world creation we have been talking about since #51 and #52. That is the context.

If for you "shared world creation" refers only to "making up a country", then I feel like the term is being disingenuously applied to make your point, and seems a completely arbitrary place to draw that line.

That said, even early versions of D&D stressed the creation of "territories" by the PCs, with Gygax noting in the DMG:
 

QuoteThe real benefit of having player characters develop territory is the addition to your milieu.

Of course, if your objection here is that a "territory" is smaller than a "country", or that it doesn't have a "king" or whatever, then the line you're drawing is even more arbitrary than I thought.

Of course, Gygax also stressed the characters' development as being integral to the game world:

QuoteThe fame (or infamy) of certain characters gives lustre to the campaign and enjoyment to player and DM alike as the parts grow and are entwined to become a fantastic history of a never-was world where all of us would wish to live if we could.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099398Untrue. I provided a somewhat sizeable amount of pretty popular trad games that come with built-in settings, which serves at least as weak indication that my claim is true.

No, you seem to be confused on the distinctions between assertion, argument, and evidence.  This makes the "logic" of your points difficult to take seriously.

Zalman,

Yep, that's what we meant: creating a world together to be played (instead of affecting/changing a pre-existing one through play). Do you think it's a more popular practice than using pre-existing settings or GM-created ones? I honestly can't see that based on games I know.

Also, can you describe more of that Gygax passage? Does he gives more instructions related to that? Thanks in advance.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1099422No, you seem to be confused on the distinctions between assertion, argument, and evidence.  This makes the "logic" of your points difficult to take seriously.

English isn't my native language, feel free to enlighten me please.

Quote from: Zalman;1099410If for you "shared world creation" refers only to "making up a country", then I feel like the term is being disingenuously applied to make your point, and seems a completely arbitrary place to draw that line.

I presume before implying I might be using the term disingeniously you did double-check that I was the one who introduced the term into this debate? Anyway, I didn't (and don't) object to the terminology because anyone who did follow the conversation would clearly understand the context in which we have been using it here.

Quote from: Zalman;1099410That said, even early versions of D&D stressed the creation of "territories" by the PCs, with Gygax noting in the DMG:
  Of course, if your objection here is that a "territory" is smaller than a "country", or that it doesn't have a "king" or whatever, then the line you're drawing is even more arbitrary than I thought.

Of course, Gygax also stressed the characters' development as being integral to the game world:

No, no. Early D&D, as far as I have read about it, especially the first Blackmoor campaigns, featured plenty of shared world-building. I just doubt that it's typical for what followed.
But I don't know if this is a useful conversation to continue. I was never bent on "proving my point", as that is impossible, and I kinda doubt that those who believe this kind of shared world building hasn't been atypical for trad games overall can prove their point. But if I anyone wants to give it a try, you have my attention.
Otherwise, we're just exchanging perspectives.

Quote from: Itachi;1099423Zalman,

Yep, that's what we meant: creating a world together to be played (instead of affecting/changing a pre-existing one through play). Do you think it's a more popular practice than using pre-existing settings or GM-created ones? I honestly can't see that based on games I know.

Also, can you describe more of that Gygax passage? Does he gives more instructions related to that? Thanks in advance.

Sorry, I'm still not buying the distinction between "pre-existing" and "one through play". Maybe you do it differently, but personally I don't create a brand new world for every game session, nor do I create a brand new world for every new group, campaign, or joining player. The game world we use was started by me, the DM, and then evolved though player actions. It's been alive for years, and when a new player joins the group, or a new campaign begins, it starts with the world as built primarily through game play.

Do you think it's more popular to use a brand new fresh game world for every session? Every campaign? That certainly hasn't been the case in my experience. As others have pointed out, 1e's "pre-existing" (according to you) game world is chock-full of spells, locales, and personas created by players, during the game. So is my game world. So is every other game world I've ever played in. I am very skeptical that creating new worlds for each new group of players is "more popular".

As to Gygax, those quotes come from the 1e DMG's section devoted to PCs establishing keeps, territory, political affiliations, etc., and generally becoming influential figures in the game world. Perhaps you consider powerful personas in your "pre-existing" setting to be somehow different than powerful personas that get added to it along the way, but that sounds to me a lot like another completely arbitrary distinction born of confirmation bias.

Quote from: Zalman;1099497... but that sounds to me a lot like another completely arbitrary distinction born of confirmation bias.

Well, at least it is on topic then.  

You win the thread.

Quote from: Zalman;1099410That said, even early versions of D&D stressed the creation of "territories" by the PCs, with Gygax noting in the DMG

Umm, Gygax is talking about Player CHARACTERS actually creating territories or even countries by taking land in game and ruling it, not Agthar the barbarian deciding he comes from Agtharistan, which then becomes a retroactively existing country in your campaign.

Quote from: Zalman;1099497that sounds to me a lot like another completely arbitrary distinction born of confirmation bias.

More like born of the difference between In-Character and Out of Character.

Quote from: Zalman;1099393Unless your campaign is a full-on railroad, "shared world creation" is the de facto default, intended mode of traditional RPGs.

This is the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in this thread, and that's saying something.

Shared-World Creation, as is seen in many games coming from the Forge/Narrative side of design, is Players, Out of Character,  sharing the role of the GM and helping create the setting, it's major themes, major enemies, how the players will interact with all that, etc.

That has NOTHING to do with In-Character play, where the PCs, while playing the game, create spells, save towns, build cities, prop up some Kings, while bringing down others, etc. etc.

Two different things.  The difference between IC play and OOC design.

Someone saying that is Common in Traditional Play is flat out lying or completely ignorant.  A couple of outliers or a single designers optional advice dating from the 80s does not make something Common.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1099542Shared-World Creation, as is seen in many games coming from the Forge/Narrative side of design, is Players, Out of Character,  sharing the role of the GM and helping create the setting, it's major themes, major enemies, how the players will interact with all that, etc.

In fact, I submit this as further indication - that shared world creation, in the sense it was used here in this thread, has been part of the "player empowerment" pushed by exactly that group of gamers; and why push something that had already been a typical thing?