Quote from: Simlasa;735760Well, 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!'

There are games like that, that give the players the ability to introduce a convenient (or inconvenient) truth.

Generally, since I'm a low-to-no-prep GM, when the group encounters something new, I'll ask the players pointed questions, either in character or out of character, about this new thing. In my experience, this has resulted in everyone at the table (including myself) being surprised more often by an emergent game world created through play, lower overhead for me making the game run faster, and all of us being more engaged in what's going on because we all have a creative stake in it.

Perhaps the success of this method can be attributed to my players, but some of them also run pathfinder modules for the group (though they admitted to GM fatigue) and lots of board gaming, and tabletop war gaming, which doesn't really interest me. I don't really see my group thinking about whether the questions I asked broke the 4th wall, or immersion, or was directed at them instead of their character, they're there to have kickass adventures in bizarre settings, roll some dice, and have a good time.

It's also interesting to note how different game rules influence a player's behaviour. The same player that uses system mastery to make a combat juggernaut in pathfinder quickly adapted to making a quirky, entertaining edible magic pudding golem and not concentrating on stats or builds and is one of my most creative players in dungeon world.  He still enjoys both games.

Creative world building is important in my Amber games.

I remove the Elders from my Amber games as I want the PCs to be the protagonists of the story and I don't want a cast of better, tougher characters in the wings (I would do the same in a Superheroes game).

I assume the basics of the Amber universe. Dworkin draws the Pattern in his own blood using the Eye of the Serpent (aka The jewel of Judgement) as a pattern.
Its creation forms a pole in the universe which is then generated in the interference between Amber and Chaos.
Earth exists on the Amber side of the mix, the midpoint is marked by Ygg the World tree.
Chaos is made up of lots of houses not unlike House Bariman (Dworkin's house) and is basically a collection of floating shadow pockets.
Oberon Dworkin's son is King in Amber. The PCs are his children for the most part.

Now everything else about the universe is up for grabs.
A PC wants to be the main architect of the Castle sure give me some plans. Want to decide what the Amber standing is army is like, the guards in Arden, or indeed make Arden a giant swamp not a forest, etc etc
All of this stu we decide as part of char gen. The party can remake the golden Circle can extablish long running diplomatic ties to Chaos, np.
Basically, the PCs define the Amberverse (note PCs not players .....)

It's fantastic to engage players in the process and it makes them really care about the world.

I think that it all really depends on the people with whom you're playing. Which reads as really damn obvious, I know, but this point really punched me in the face recently. Or, to be more specific, during my current campaign.

I tried collaborative world-building for the first time, in the hopes of feeding off of the players' ideas to create a sandbox. It seemed like a good experiment at the time: theoretically everyone at the table would be on the same page for character creation, development and other themes.

I was so fucking wrong. At least, I was about the two new players to our group. I extended the trust that I had for my closer friends (with whom I've been playing for over ten years) to the two newcomers.

Through polling and voting, I had them choose the mood, the theme and the setting. Based on those answers, I chose a game system that I believed was a good fit. In our example, let's just say that it ended up being very much inspired by the Unhallowed Metropolis RPG crossed with Hellboy and the Supernatural TV show. Pretty specific, I felt and it was entirely the players' choice...

But with some players, if you give them a bunch of rope, they'll demand an entire fucking rope FACTORY and then complain that there aren't enough chains.

They felt WAY too entitled to make shit up about their characters and backgrounds which conflicted with even the most basic premise for the setting, the most fundamental rules in the game, and the meagre backstory I set up for the organization that they worked for. My philosphy is never just "no", I try to use "yes, but" and play along, but... Well I got really challenged this time.

One example:

"my character is really a dragon and was sent to earth by a magical council of dragons"...

My reply was "yes and they're like the Ogdru Jahad from Hellboy, the seven dragons of Chaos who wish to undo the world because they're apathetically evil in an alien way"

(This sort of worked, but later on it became apparent that she wanted more of a high fantasy anime thing... *shudder*)

So I've made adjustments on their behalf after we all had an open talk about it. I'm glad that we did, but boy we (my veteran players and I) do not want to play with them again next campaign. The whiny entitlement that I've seen... I seriously used to think that these sorts of gamers were straw-men boogeymen that some grognards made up. Now I've seen it first hand, my world view has changed. Yeah I fucked up but sadly that's how I tend to learn the most in this hobby.

Summary: CWB is something that I'll only do with people that I know pretty well and with whom I share a mutual trust. Never again with strangers or mild acquaintances.

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.

Absolutely. When I read about storygamers, I think: A group made up entirely of GMs. Who all care much more about narrative and genre than anyone I've met. How unlikely.

The 70 or 80 people in the english-speaking world who care about such things all found each other online and shared their enthusiasm. Which is fine. But the notion of there being enough like-minded people to form face-to-face groups who play mainly storygames, with each participant being a creatively-inspired artist invested in the game as deeply as a GM, is wishful thinking.

Me, I'm lucky if half the guys in my group even bother to read the rules to the game, let alone have a creative agenda. And I don't think I'm unusual in that respect.

I have no objection to people playing through collaborative world building. My only issue is if someone tells me that I ought to be doing so, or that not doing so is somehow bad. I mean, if it adds to your enjoyment of play, by all means go for it. For me, some of this stuff breaks the fourth wall a bit.

Quote from: Simlasa;735760Well, 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!'

There's a discussion on improvisation at Big Purple right now that addresses this very thing.

My biggest pet peeve regarding these sorts of discussions is that there are still people who refuse to acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between (1) playing a game where you *are* a character in the game world and act as such, as if you were your character, considering the situations themselves as make-believe, seeing yourself in the situation as it unfolds, only using game world resources you yourself as your character would be able to use in order to deal with make-believe situations as they arise, and (2) playing a game where you participate as a co-author in building a story, where your character is instead a narrative device among others allowing you to shape and influence the building of the resulting piece of collaborative fiction.

These are two fundamentally different points of view, two fundamentally different ways to construe the object of the game, two play styles which can each be appreciated on their own terms, on their own merits by the same gamers, or not, depending on what particular individuals are searching for when they are participating to a game. It's okay to like both, and it's also okay to like one thing and not the other.

What is not okay from my point of view is to pretend the distinction doesn't exist and that those who don't like this or that should just go along for the ride and "get on with the times" when games like D&D, Warhammer, Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu or whatever are changed in order to pander to the story-building crowd because since the distinction isn't supposed to exist, "the game remains the same," right? Right. That's just not cool with me.

Its the deus ex machina to me. In storygames there is a lot more of it than there is in traditional games, so the "story" that is generated tends to be more like a "B" movie plot than something worth some critical acclaim with breadth and depth.

What happens when something is suggested that isn't liked?  Do you vote or is it decided by the DM?

And aren't all games telling stories? I seem to have missed all the fights in the gaming community.  

Quote from: Ralph The Dog;735866And aren't all games telling stories?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735757First, 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.

My apologies.  Based on:

Quote from: Black Vulmea's BlogThe sad and somewhat frustrating thing about this whole exercise is that neither the panelists nor Francis' blogpost take note of the trumpeting African bull elephant in the room: the difference isn't between the players collaborating in world building or not - it's between collaborating in world building in-character or out-of-character.

I kind of assumed that was your main point (since it was called out, and was the only bolded text).

As far as the "not exploring when it's useful vs. not" issue, you'll notice I agreed with you.  I even called out that when the only useful con of a technique you can come up with is "people might not be comfortable with it" (which kinda easily comes off as 'people may not be enlightened enough'), then you lack the necessary objectivity to truly analyze whatever the hell it is you're talking about.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735757Second, I addressed differences in collaborative world building in the comments.

And yet you ignored *my* suggestions on how I would/have done similar things using collaborative world building, which I find less contentious than your extremely artificial methods:

1) The existence of the Yakuza does not preclude other groups
2) The existence of the Yakuza does not tell you what they're up to
3) It's just as viable to establish the existence of secret societies *in general*, without specifying *exactly* which ones are there and which ones aren't.

At a more general level, collaborative world building establishes *some* facts about the game world.  It certainly doesn't establish *all* facts, and in no way should a GM feel prevented from doing additional world creation as required.

I don't see it as being fundamentally different than using a canned setting - it will areas filled in, and areas left blank, and it's the GM's job to take that setting and add to it and make it real.  The real difference is where that initial setting comes from, and the fact that with CWB it's almost *universally* less fleshed out than a published setting (or a historical one, or...)

I don't see people claiming that setting your game in the Forgotten Realms, or Glorantha, or means that there can't be any exploration or discovery.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735757Of course there are different ways to do it - how much is comfortable and appropriate will vary by player, by game, and by circumstances.

Of course.  And I'm not arguing that it's applicable to all games or groups.  I do find it a pretty useful technique for the right games, and think that a lot of groups would be benefitted by it.  But I also don't think that not using it is a sign of some kind of weird moral deficiency.

Quote from: Simlasa;735760Well, 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!'

The ongoing stuff is pretty orthogonal to what I think of as CWB.  CWB is, to me, mostly the stuff that happens before play.  Declaring setting details *during* play can be done with or without CWB, and will vary based on what kinds of details you're trying to set.

I also think that very few games I know of recommend allowing people to *modify* already established facts via meta resources, even if they do allow for players to *establish* facts that don't contradict other established facts.

The 'machine gun under a blanket' situation is kind of that latter category.  I can't speak for others, but in games where it makes sense to me, I generally allow it for the categories of things where I'd normally say "maybe" if I was asked.  So, if you're in a supply room in a war zone or the like, is there a machine gun under the blanket?  ....Maybe.  I can roll for it, or you can pony up the resources and I'll just say "okay".  But if you're in a suburban home, the answer is 'no', no matter how many Fate Points or the like you throw at me.

As an example, in Fate, players are only allowed (RAW) to make declarations about things that relate to their aspects - this is usually more in line with the 'tell me of your homeland' stuff than 'machine gun under the blanket'.

There's also a difference in play-style, in whether the GM intends the scenario to be more of a 'puzzle', where the goal of play is to see whether the players can overcome the obstacles, or more of a 'situation', where the goal is to see how things develop.  'Machine gun under the blanket' is pretty patently bad for the first type, but *may* (given the previous caveats) work in the second.

It is kind of interesting that detail declarations that people against them use are almost always silly ones like 'machine gun under the blanket', when most GMs that allow for detail declaration wouldn't allow that type of declaration *anyway*, because it makes no damn sense.  A more neutral declaration might be 'we're at a construction site, and I find some rope'.  It's a strawman in the same way that the 'mages in 1e can't live because anything can kill them in one hit' bullshit, which completely ignores the fact that there's plenty of rules and ways to ensure that the mages don't *get* hit, and if they're in a place to take damage, somebody has already screwed up.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;735845I have no objection to people playing through collaborative world building. My only issue is if someone tells me that I ought to be doing so, or that not doing so is somehow bad. I mean, if it adds to your enjoyment of play, by all means go for it. For me, some of this stuff breaks the fourth wall a bit.

Agreed, and I agree that the panel's description of why you might not want to use CWB came off as a bit judgemental, as they didn't seem to offer any real reasons why you wouldn't.

As far as the fourth-wall stuff goes, again, I do see this usually happening *before* play, at the same time as (or before) character creation.  I would personally find doing this kind of stuff on a regular basis throughout 'normal' play to be very jarring, personally.  I don't know any proponents of CWB that I've known actually propose that, though.

Quote from: Benoist;735856My biggest pet peeve regarding these sorts of discussions is that there are still people who refuse to acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between (1) playing a game where you *are* a character in the game world and act as such, as if you were your character, considering the situations themselves as make-believe, seeing yourself in the situation as it unfolds, only using game world resources you yourself as your character would be able to use in order to deal with make-believe situations as they arise, and (2) playing a game where you participate as a co-author in building a story, where your character is instead a narrative device among others allowing you to shape and influence the building of the resulting piece of collaborative fiction.

While I basically agree with you, I do think the 'co-author' thing is overstated, from my experience with both 'narrative' games and traditional games (and I have far, far more experience with traditional games, for over 30 years).  I see that a bit in things like Fiasco or My Life With Master or Penny For Your Thoughts, but honestly, playing AW, or DW, or Fate, I generally don't see a huge distinction in the player/GM roles from playing GURPS.

CWB, specifically, I find applicable even to many 'traditional' games as it happens prior to 'play' proper.  The only real impact it has on play is that players will know some of the details of the setting, which is something that's happened for years with published settings anyway.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;735869

It's like raking water up a hill.

Quote from: Benoist;735876It's like raking water up a hill.

Agreed.  When people say things like that, they're ignoring that people play games for different reasons.

There's a reason Dale Carnegie said "understand first, then be understood".

Quote from: robiswrong;735873While I basically agree with you, I do think the 'co-author' thing is overstated, from my experience with both 'narrative' games and traditional games (and I have far, far more experience with traditional games, for over 30 years).  I see that a bit in things like Fiasco or My Life With Master or Penny For Your Thoughts, but honestly, playing AW, or DW, or Fate, I generally don't see a huge distinction in the player/GM roles from playing GURPS.

I do. What should be okay IMO is to acknowledge the difference, all along with the idea that from there it's a matter of degrees and grey areas, rather than fences, the two play styles or takes on the object of the game blending into each other in a number of games. Likewise, personal takes, and how particular game structures and mechanics will resonate with this or that player, this or that game master, will be different depending on a whole host of things, like the way you envision the game world, the type of tools helping to realize these visions, and so on.

What's not okay, to me, is to basically wave the distinction away and pretend that it doesn't exist.

Quote from: robiswrong;735873CWB, specifically, I find applicable even to many 'traditional' games as it happens prior to 'play' proper.  The only real impact it has on play is that players will know some of the details of the setting, which is something that's happened for years with published settings anyway.

That completely depends what the participants in the game are searching for in playing the game, IMO. Besides, it's not because something has been done for a long time that it can't rub some people the wrong way. Cue railroading in adventure modules, for instance. Personally, I prefer when I can make up small details about my PC's background along with the GM, all the time with the latter having a right of veto telling me "this fits the world nice," or "this doesn't do at all." I don't like games where every player comes up with a chunk of the setting - this is design by committee, and it usually sucks hard, from my standpoint. I'm very much of Black Vulmea's mind here, in the sense that there's a question of scale in coming up with a character concept, rather than kind.

Quote from: purple thread linked to by BMGet used to saying 'yes'. We're used to saying 'no' because 'no' gives us a false sense of control. Play with saying 'yes.' When a player asks you a question it's because they are interested in something. Reward that. There are three variations on this.

1. Ask for specifics. You're in a tavern. The player asks if anyone is acting 'suspicious.' You say "What do you mean by 'suspicious'?" The player responds by asking if it looks like anyone has a concealed weapon. Now you have someplace to go. "Actually, the mood is very festive in the tavern. Music is playing and people are having a good time. No one seems to be acting hostile or anything. But while you are taking in the ambiance of the evening you see a woman approach a man. She moves her hand down the side of her jacket and, though it's only exposed for a second, you're sure you see her flash a magic wand. The man whom she had approached goes pale, scans the room, and leads her to a small side room. What do you do?"

2. Use 'yes, but...' "Is there a rope around that I can use to climb down the wall?" "Yes, but it's old and frayed. You're not sure if it will support your weight."

3. Use 'yes, and...' "Now that he's unconscious, I go through the nobles pockets. Does he have any money?" "Yes, and you also find a very ornate letter. It's in a language that you don't recognize but you figure it must be important due to both the quality of the material and the fact that he kept it in the top right breast pocket of his shirt."

Why?
Why always yes?
What is wrong with...
Player - "Is there a rope around that I can use to climb down the wall?"
GM - "No."
Now the character has to decide what to do next.   He could...
1. Try to climb the wall anyway, this gives just as much drama, consequence, and protagonism as the yes, but, arguably even more.
2. Not climb down the wall, coming up with some other path, possibly being better then the one he was going to try.
3. Decide to forget going down there and avoid the...etc etc etc.

The ONLY way the "Yes,X" philosophy works as the default response is if you are approaching the game from a storybuilding point of view where you are a group of people riffing on each other's creation like any type of group creative exercise.  In that case, a "No" stops the flow of storytelling and interrupts the player's creation.  For shared storytelling, that is not cool.  For Roleplaying a character, however, it should be just as valid and common an answer as yes.

Now the GM may decide to give out false or incomplete information because that's what the situation describes, but if we are talking about a binary decision, then every fact the GM answers a question with is based on...

• Something he knows is true, because he created it beforehand and the answer is concrete and objective - ie. even though there is a shotgun behind most bars in the Wild West, there is no shotgun behind Clem's bar in the Songbird Saloon.
  
• Something that is strongly implied by the specifics of the setting - Firearms aren't allowed in Big Whiskey Montana, so even though the GM hasn't decided on the fact beforehand, it's pretty clear Skinny wouldn't have a shotgun back there, because he's scared to death of Little Bill.
  
• Something that is generally true because it fits the genre and GM, like the player, assumes it to be true.  The players decide to head to a town the GM hasn't really prepped, they walk into a bar, get into a fight and a player jumps over the bar to grab a shotgun, the GM rolls with it because why not. (or rolls the dice to be more impartial).
  

The "Say Yes" crowd generally assumes the third point to be the default mode for good GMing, which leads to collaborative worldbuilding.