Quote from: Black Vulmea;735655Pundy's Swine jihad is a cruise through Crazytown,

I think it had some traction up to about 2 or 3 years ago.

Since then, the missionaries seem to have gone back home.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735655Pundy's Swine jihad is a cruise through Crazytown, but that said, watching this panel video on collaborative world-building from Contessa reminds me that the attitudes of smug condescension and pseudo-intellectualism which fuel his conspiratorial ravings do exist among some roleplaying gamers.

Ah, yes... some of the usual suspects there.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735655Pundy's Swine jihad is a cruise through Crazytown, but that said, watching this panel video on collaborative world-building from Contessa reminds me that the attitudes of smug condescension and pseudo-intellectualism which fuel his conspiratorial ravings do exist among some roleplaying gamers.

Just the fact that they can take 1.5 hours discussing that is rather mind boggling. Is there any way to get the gist of that without having to sit through all of it?

Quote from: 3rik;735670Is there any way to get the gist of that without having to sit through all of it?

My blog post.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735677My blog post.

Interesting post.  I'd like to watch the whole video eventually.

I'm generally a fan of collaborative world-building, for *certain types of games*.  For others, it's utterly inappropriate.  I agree with the page you posted on many of the advantages, and didn't find that part too 'smug'.

What I did find a bit smug, however, (and it would be interesting to see where the smugness came from) was the arguments *against* it - they all seem to be some form of "people may not like it, even though it's better."

Guess what - if I'm running a really old-school, open-table type of game, I am *not* using collab worldbuilding.  It doesn't really have a place.  It works best in games where the game really is *about* those particular characters.  And if you can't come up with situations where your technique isn't appropriate (beyond 'people aren't enlightened enough'), then you lack the appropriate level of objectivity.

OTOH, I kind of disagree with your main point, Black Vulmea.  When I do collab worldbuilding, it's generally only lays out some basics of the world as a whole, and is done before the campaign, usually in a session 'zero' where we also do character creation - so in that way, it's no more 'out of character' than character creation itself.

During play, there's no real out-of-character setting creation going on.  The closest might be letting a player declare something like "hey, I know the Purple Worm Inn here in town, it's the best place if you're looking for underworld types."  If that makes sense for the character to know, and it's reasonable that there's such a place, then I find little value in having them ask me for the name of every damn thing in the game.  Same with other things like certain cultural details, etc... if they're a dwarf, and they spout off about some dwarven lore, sure, go ahead.  I don't really consider that OoC, either.  But, of course, even that is dependent on the type of game...  again, a more traditional open table type of game, I'm less likely to be as free with that kind of stuff because there's likely more setting details that are already set *anyway*.

Beyond the loss of mystery/exploration my main issue with the supposed wonders of CWB is that its proponents always assume a group of well-matched, creative, interesting players... but in my experience it's more likely that there's gonna be a couple of creative guys at the table and the rest are just there for snacks/socializing and a bit of skirmish... not likely to think bring much except some pastiche of their favorite mainstream fantasy book/movie.
Bob might be a nice guy, fun to play games with, but I really don't want to play in the sort of setting he'd likely come up with... because it's always going to turn into The Princess Bride.

Quote from: Simlasa;735709Beyond the loss of mystery/exploration my main issue with the supposed wonders of CWB is that its proponents always assume a group of well-matched, creative, interesting players... but in my experience it's more likely that there's gonna be a couple of creative guys at the table and the rest are just there for snacks/socializing and a bit of skirmish... not likely to think bring much except some pastiche of their favorite mainstream fantasy book/movie.
Bob might be a nice guy, fun to play games with, but I really don't want to play in the sort of setting he'd likely come up with... because it's always going to turn into The Princess Bride.

I don't really disagree with you, but it's a problem with the group, rather than the concept. Every game assumes players who will want to play a certain way.

If the group is happy with that sort of game, fine, there's no problem. If not, they should play something else; we shouldn't stop exploring concepts just because they aren't for everyone.

Quote from: Simlasa;735709Beyond the loss of mystery/exploration my main issue with the supposed wonders of CWB is that its proponents always assume a group of well-matched, creative, interesting players... but in my experience it's more likely that there's gonna be a couple of creative guys at the table and the rest are just there for snacks/socializing and a bit of skirmish... not likely to think bring much except some pastiche of their favorite mainstream fantasy book/movie.
Bob might be a nice guy, fun to play games with, but I really don't want to play in the sort of setting he'd likely come up with... because it's always going to turn into The Princess Bride.

It's certainly a potential problem.  In my experience the "collaborative" nature of CWB can kinda help with that, as the more passive players will just utilize more input from the active players.  That, of course, will also depend on how CWB is being done for a particular game.

It's also certainly of a lot less use for players who expect games to primarily be "a bit of a skirmish".  If the world is primarily a backdrop for the minis battles, then it's kind of a pointless exercise.

Quote from: Ladybird;735714I don't really disagree with you, but it's a problem with the group, rather than the concept.

Well, I think it's an inherent entry hurdle of the concept... very few groups I've played in would work well with it. It's a 'problem' that would plague CWB but not a traditional group with a solid GM.

QuoteIf the group is happy with that sort of game, fine, there's no problem. If not, they should play something else; we shouldn't stop exploring concepts just because they aren't for everyone.

People should play however they like, of course... but exploring concepts can become a game of it's own, a game of a different sort altogether. Brainstorming is fun but maybe not an end unto itself.

Quote from: robiswrong;735722It's also certainly of a lot less use for players who expect games to primarily be "a bit of a skirmish".  If the world is primarily a backdrop for the minis battles, then it's kind of a pointless exercise.

I think it is for some players... just like there is often the 'numbers guy' whose primary joy is optimizing the stats on his character sheet. Most groups I've played in have been a mix of various sorts... the guy who wants to play-act in funny voices, the guy who just wants to hang out, the guy who likes the math of it all. With a GM managing the 'big picture' they can all kind of muddle along and get their own fun out of it... but CWB seems to be asking them all to step up to the creative plate... and in that I think it's inherently a niche sort of activity that is gonna leave a lot of players behind while exalting the 'creativity' of others.

Quote from: Simlasa;735728Well, I think it's an inherent entry hurdle of the concept... very few groups I've played in would work well with it.

I've played with groups and players where it would work, and where it wouldn't. If it's not something a particular player enjoys, we don't suggest games like it to them again, and they don't join games like it again.

It's not something I'm keen on in large chunks either, actually. Small bits (Like the Barbarian's "tell us something about your homeland, every session" ability), great; co-op star sector building, sounds a bit dull, not for me.

If your group is more limited, sure, your group choice might be more limited, but you're all adults; you compromise and play something you all enjoy, or stop playing if the group is too incompatible for you.

QuotePeople should play however they like, of course... but exploring concepts can become a game of it's own, a game of a different sort altogether. Brainstorming is fun but maybe not an end unto itself.

And if the group is enjoying that, OK, what's the problem?

Quote from: Simlasa;735728I think it is for some players... just like there is often the 'numbers guy' whose primary joy is optimizing the stats on his character sheet. Most groups I've played in have been a mix of various sorts... the guy who wants to play-act in funny voices, the guy who just wants to hang out, the guy who likes the math of it all. With a GM managing the 'big picture' they can all kind of muddle along and get their own fun out of it... but CWB seems to be asking them all to step up to the creative plate... and in that I think it's inherently a niche sort of activity that is gonna leave a lot of players behind while exalting the 'creativity' of others.

*shrug*

In actual play, I haven't found it to be an issue, primarily because of the fact that we're talking about *one* session of the game, which is also the same time that characters are made.  Of course, that's anecdotal, and could be influenced by the people I play with.  If it was an every session type of thing, I could certainly see it being a bigger problem.

Again, I'm not claiming it's a panacea, and it's certainly not appropriate for certain types of games.  But I do think it's a very useful tool in the toolbox, and a bit beyond 'niche'.  I'm also not claiming that people who use CWB are more enlightened, have whiter teeth, or anything like that.  Strangely enough, I don't typically pass value judgements on people based on how they play their elf games.

I do think the idea that there can be no exploration in a CWB campaign is a bit overstated.  I find the setting details to come out of CWB to be closer to a back-of-the-book blurb than they are to the whole damn book.  To use an example from Black Vulmea's site, knowing that the Yakuza are in the game certainly stops them from being a surprise.  But it in no way precludes *other* groups from existing, which certainly can be a surprise.

Certainly, you're not going to be fleshing out reams of setting information in a few hours.

Also, depending on the form of CWB you're using, you can certainly establish things like "there are secret societies at work" without actually detailing out *any* of them.  But that's dependent on the type of CWB that you're using.  I don't think that's a likely result from Microscope, frex, but it's pretty likely from something like Spark.

I'm totally fine with a pre-game whiparound to see what ingredients everyone would like to see in the game... but that discussion Vulmea posted was favoring a lot more than a bit of a chat before the game.
Characters using resources to alter the setting details mid-game... or creating detailed NPCs... organizations... histories... all of which I assume would have some degree of being inviolate by the GM ('Hey! I created her and that's NOT what she would do!').
As usual there is a continuum here... and at the shallow end of CWB I'm happy. But at the deeper end it does feel like it's either an endless brainstorming session that goes nowhere... or something competitive where I push for nihilistic horror vs. the guy who wants to play in Discworld. Either way it leaves roleplaying far behind in search of something... else.

I'll maintain that the heavier sorts of CWB are 'niche' because few RPG groups are going to be able to work together that well... and it's not like it's that easy to just go out and find a group that perfectly matches my preferences/tastes even for traditional gaming.

Quote from: Simlasa;735735I'm totally fine with a pre-game whiparound to see what ingredients everyone would like to see in the game... but that discussion Vulmea posted was favoring a lot more than a bit of a chat before the game.
Characters using resources to alter the setting details mid-game... or creating detailed NPCs... organizations... histories... all of which I assume would have some degree of being inviolate by the GM ('Hey! I created her and that's NOT what she would do!').

I'm not really familiar with any games that use mid-game heavy CWB - particularly not in terms of rewriting already set details of the setting.  That would be very odd.

Even with CWB systems that I've used, there's generally a presumption of "handoff" to the GM after you go through the CWB process.

Again, mid-play detailing about things that the character absolutely *would* know?  Depending on the game, that's one thing.  I have zero issues with a mercenary telling me about the sleazy inn in town that he stayed in!  Similarly, the barbarian guy riffing on about the culture and ceremonies of his tribe?  Generally cool.  Just saying "hey, there's a secret society here in this town now that's actually behind all of this!" is kind of... wtf to me.

Quote from: Simlasa;735735As usual there is a continuum here... and at the shallow end of CWB I'm happy. But at the deeper end it does feel like it's either an endless brainstorming session that goes nowhere...

I tend to use the Spark (specifically, "A Spark in Fate Core").  It has a series of specific steps to follow, that in most cases allow for or require people to build off of the previous step.  It's pretty damn cool for what it does (and is easily migratable to non-Fate Core stuff).

Quote from: Simlasa;735735or something competitive where I push for nihilistic horror vs. the guy who wants to play in Discworld.

I think that's something that needs to be sorted out before you start playing anyway.  CWB doesn't *create* that problem, even though it may expose it.

Quote from: Simlasa;735735Either way it leaves roleplaying far behind in search of something... else.

If it were more than the first session, I'd agree.  Lighter setting detailing stuff (like the aforementioned sleazy bar/cultural details) stuff to me can help roleplaying, as it gives players the ability to just riff on the spot without having to ask me for every damn name of every damn thing in the game.

Quote from: Simlasa;735735I'll maintain that the heavier sorts of CWB are 'niche' because few RPG groups are going to be able to work together that well... and it's not like it's that easy to just go out and find a group that perfectly matches my preferences/tastes even for traditional gaming.

If by "heavy" CWB, you mean something that's done in a heavyweight session for every game, I'd totally agree.  At the extreme end, you might end up with something like Microscope run as a campaign.  Which could be interesting, but it's not roleplaying in any traditional way.

But most folks I've heard of in favor of CWB do *not* suggest that kind of heaviness of its use.

Here's something I wrote in the Fate Core group a while back, about what it kinda means to me.

https://plus.google.com/108546067488075210468/posts/Tqa3iKdsUsu

You'll notice I make some assumptions about the idea that the game *does* revolve around these particular characters.  That's true, *when I play Fate Core*, as it's kind of designed around some of that.  As I said, I wouldn't use CWB for a traditional, open-table D&D game.

Quote from: robiswrong;735690OTOH, I kind of disagree with your main point, Black Vulmea.  When I do collab worldbuilding, it's generally only lays out some basics of the world as a whole, and is done before the campaign, usually in a session 'zero' where we also do character creation - so in that way, it's no more 'out of character' than character creation itself.

First, that wasn't my main point - my main point is that the panel missed an opportunity to have a more wide-ranging and perhaps enlightening discussion, instead of settling for a circle jerk.

Second, I addressed differences in collaborative world building in the comments.

Quote from: Black VulmeaIn my experience, players routinely make up game-world details pertaining their characters' backgrounds in all of the traditional roleplaying games I've ever played. The difference is not one of either/or, but rather one of scale.

Quote from: Black VulmeaIf you want a secret society, you need to (1) add the secret society during CWB and then all of the players pretend it doesn't exist, (2) add the secret society during CWB and then allow the referee to change it so that it's actually not the secret society the player who proposed it intended it to be, effectively vetoing the player's input, (3) ignore the secret society added during CWB because it's not really secret, or (4) agree that no one can add something during CWB that is a secret from the everyone else except the referee.

None of those options are 'bad' or 'wrong,' but each one carries certain opportunity costs. Players can, and do, partition player knowledge and character knowledge pretty routinely, so (1) is a viable option, but how much and what kind of information the players need to partition may adversely affect their engagement with the game.

Of course there are different ways to do it - how much is comfortable and appropriate will vary by player, by game, and by circumstances.

Quote from: robiswrong;735738Even with CWB systems that I've used, there's generally a presumption of "handoff" to the GM after you go through the CWB process.
***
But most folks I've heard of in favor of CWB do *not* suggest that kind of heaviness of its use.

Well, as you describe it I've got little or no issue... which leaves me wondering if I'm crazy for thinking that I've seen collaborative play folks promoting heavy ongoing collaboration... and using meta resources to buy changes to ongoing settings during play... such as, 'Oh, I find a machine gun under a slanket!'