Forked from "An Epiphany" thread: Is World Building "Necessary"?

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Andor

You might like hearing about a sword +1, +2 vs papparazzi.

Apropos of nothing, I love this idea and will probably steal it. Thanks!

[Kask]

Originally Posted by Hussar

No Kask, that is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if my join date is five years ago, then perhaps, just maybe, I've been gaming for AT LEAST five years.

So? Why would I care if you'd been gaming for 5 years?

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by billd91

I would even submit that your definitions aren't mutually exclusive and that plenty of decisions a DM might make will fit into both or may shift from one classification to the other based on what the PCs actually do when interacting with the world.

Put me down as DM who doesn't really get the distinction being made. Roughly half of our 4e homebrew setting document is a list of NPC's. They're as much a part of the environment as a dangerous alley, a storied mountain, or the setting's peculiar afterlife is.

Let me give you an example from our setting.

• Ingenué Santos is an explorer and airship captain. (NPC)

• Her airship is carried beneath a lighter-than-air Astral Starfish, which is buoyant because it's full of the void and infinitely-remote stars. They can also be persuaded to shoot bolts of purest void. (setting fluff)

• It's well known that Ingenué is planning an expedition to the mythical land called the Interior. (future plot hook)

In writing up Ingenué I was creating the setting, because good settings are made of people, creating a potential campaign arc, and indulging in pure worldbuilding porn, in the details about the Astral Starfish.

[PrecociousApprentice]

Hussar is responding to the implication in an earlier post of yours Kask that basically stated that only people who have been gaming for a short time could like playing the way that he does. The other side of the coin of your implication is that people who have been playing for a long time would obviously find your playstyle to be superior. He was trying to establish his gameing credentials a little, and attempting to set you straight after maligning his gaming sensibilities.

You are completely wrong about longer experience leading people to play one, obviously superior, way. I have been playing for 23 years. Not as long as some, but probably much longer than most. I do not hold what you consider to be "true" to be anything like you state it. Experience gaming =/= coming to the same conclusion as you.

Can we get to some productive conversation now and quit with the ad hominem attacks?

[Kask]

Originally Posted by PrecociousApprentice

Hussar is responding to the implication in an earlier post of yours Kask that basically stated that only people who have been gaming for a short time could like playing the way that he does.

I didn't say or imply that. Don't EVER put words in my mouth again.

This is not how you talk to people at EN World. Lose the attitude, please. You can correct someone and still be polite about it. ~ Piratecat

[Fallen Seraph]

This is somewhat similar to PrecociousApprentice's Setting Creation post. But is slightly different too more dealing with the actual process and less the end-effect.

I would definitely call myself a story-based DM. There is a main-plot, side-plots, character-plots, etc. As such I like to keep my setting loose to allow the plot and where the PCs take it to have "room" to deliver the narrative that is appropriate.

As such I don't create wholesale, mapped out settings I do; Drag and Drop, essentially:

Drag and Drop: The DM after consultation with his Players on what the campaign should be like; the themes, atmosphere, style of gameplay, races, etc, etc. The DM develops the plot, he does so separate of any "world" elements besides what had been already decided in consultation (exception of this being if one element is say a focus on a particular city for instance, though this would have been brought up).

After this comes a brainstorming stage. Where essentially the DM comes up with a whole library of places, events, people, etc. These would fit with the themes, atmosphere, as pre-determined. However none of this actually exists "in-game". They are simply drag and drop elements determined not by the world but the plot and the players. The plot dictates that a mine should be there, a mine is there. The players state they wish to visit a wise-man in the desert from their past, this wise-man is now in this newly formed desert.

Essentially, while there is prep-work that goes into it and in a way is "world-building", it is really the plotline and what the players choose to go/exist in the world that actually builds the world. Without the progression of the plot and players none of the world would be defined.

This idea probably has been brought up before. But I figured it is another model to through out there into the debate.

[Ourph]

Originally Posted by Kask

Like I said, it falls to pieces rapidly.

You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true.

Playing in little predefined boxes (you can't use high level spells unless you give advanced notice to DM) isn't a good campaign style.

Who said anything about not using high level spells without advance notice? That's never been a requirement in any game that I've ever run. I'm talking about players jettisoning from the current campaign context and going off to pursue goals that are completely tangential to the adventure at hand. Using teleport to go visit a sage in a distant city to find clues about something in the current campaign context would never be a problem, because that falls under the heading of "adventure prep" (i.e. clues related to the current adventure are related to the current adventure, obviously).

[Rel]

How about everybody stop arguing with each other and start discussing with each other or I'm closing the thread.

[Scribble]

Originally Posted by Andor

If you were going to get cornered at a cocktail party by a guy in a gamer shirt, who would you pick? The guy who wants to tell you about his flaming spork? Or the guy who tells you about a tribe of troglodytes that worshiped a flaming spork as their sole source of light and heat?

Either one will probably have me cringing.

[Ourph]

Originally Posted by Scribble

Either one will probably have me cringing.

Yeah, the whole "wearing a gamer t-shirt at a cocktail party" bit pretty much sets the tone.

[Kask]

Originally Posted by Ourph

Using teleport to go visit a sage in a distant city to find clues about something in the current campaign context would never be a problem, because that falls under the heading of "adventure prep"

You have to think outside the "current adventure railroad box". If the players decide to do something outside your adventure, you are stuck creating major items during the game. Like I said, some players will tolerate this, others won't. Mine wouldn't and I only would if it were a one off adventure.

[PrecociousApprentice]

Originally Posted by Mallus

Put me down as DM who doesn't really get the distinction being made. Roughly half of our 4e homebrew setting document is a list of NPC's. They're as much a part of the environment as a dangerous alley, a storied mountain, or the setting's peculiar afterlife is.

Let me give you an example from our setting.

• Ingenué Santos is an explorer and airship captain. (NPC)

• Her airship is carried beneath a lighter-than-air Astral Starfish, which is buoyant because it's full of the void and infinitely-remote stars. They can also be persuaded to shoot bolts of purest void. (setting fluff)

• It's well known that Ingenué is planning an expedition to the mythical land called the Interior. (future plot hook)

In writing up Ingenué I was creating the setting, because good settings are made of people, creating a potential campaign arc, and indulging in pure worldbuilding porn, in the details about the Astral Starfish.

This example could easily fall into either worldbuilding or setting design, and likely falls a little into both. We as readers have no way to determine the difference at this point. Was this character needed by the world, a logical consequence of the world, something that you wanted to have in the world? Or was it something that was created because the PCs needed this for their story? Was it necessary for the plot? If this character was yet to be introduced, and the PCs or plot needed something slightly different, would you be happy to change it, or would you just say that this is how the world works, the PCs need to figure out how to deal with it? We don't have near enough info to tell the difference. From the player side, good DMing makes it impossible to tell the difference between setting creation and worldbuilding, and in this case, we as readers are stuck in just about the same place.

The idea being, was the character created to directly address the the goals of play, the themes of play, the PCs character or personality, or the plot? If so, it might be setting design. Was the character created because it is the type of character that might exist in the world, or it would be cool and you want to add it, because this would make the world believable or interesting? If these are your motivations, it might be worldbuilding.

I guess I should stipulate that these definitions are based upon intention. If it is intended to create a world independent of the PCs, that is worldbuilding. If it is intended to address the PCs, it is setting creation. What the element actually happens to be has nothing to do with it. Worldbuilders and setting designers create the same elements in their games. The difference is why they do it, how they do it, and sometimes when they do it, not what they create.

If you want a story, it makes sense to create elements in your game with those intentions in mind. Creating stuff not addressing the story is extra. For people who want this type of story driven game, worldbuilding can actually be counterproductive, because it can distract form the goals of storytelling. If the world is the point, then creating elements that address the world enhances your game. It might even make your game worse if you address the players and not the world. Setting creation is essential for creating a story. Worldbuilding is essential for creating immersive worlds that exist independent of the PCs. You can do both, but the more of one or the other play styles that you desire, the more disruptive tools suited for the other style becomes. We often do both, but understanding what we are doing can enhance our games, no matter what style we are trying to create.

It would be nice if there were more beginning campaign creation advice that was directed toward storytelling instead of worldbuilding. As it stands, there is very little storytelling advice in the various DMGs.

EDIT: Fallen Sereph, your creation process seems pretty close to mine. There is no defined space and time for any element in my campaign until it is introduced into my campaign. Anything that I come up with prior to play is just a sugestion for how I will use it in play, and I modify a lot based on the needs of the story. I like the terminology of Drag-and-Drop. It also seems to imply the reskinning and almost wholesale idea theft that I use a lot. This is a good addition. Thanks.

[Ourph]

Originally Posted by Kask

You have to think outside the "current adventure railroad box". If the players decide to do something outside your adventure, you are stuck creating major items during the game.

I don't have to do anything of the sort, because there's no "railroad box" to think outside. That's an unfounded assumption on your part about my games. The fact that I expect my players to give me some advance notice before completely changing their current focus in the campaign in no way implies that they aren't able to make whatever choices they want.

For someone who, apparently, doesn't like others putting words in his mouth, you seem to be doing an awful lot of that sort of thing yourself.

[ProfessorPain]

Originally Posted by Mercurius

To what degree is world-building needed to run a good/enjoyable campaign? How does world-building support depth and internal consistency? Can these qualities be achieved without a lot of world-building? What qualities does a campaign more likely have with or without a lot of world-building? What are the potential drawbacks to a lot of world-building and can it be excessive? Is it possible to "build as you go"? Etc.

.

First, I don't think there is a wrong way to world build. And I believe the level of detail for each world should vary depending on the players and the needs of the genre. But I have some basic observations.

Is world building needed: For me this depends on the campaign. If its a dungeon delving campaing, I don't really care how many countries the DM has mapped out. But if it is a city based campaign, I will more interested in the political details of his setting. Also if there is a lot of travel involved. Its nice to know what territories you are passing through and who inhabits them.

Internal Consistency: I think record keeping and memory is the most important thing for internal consistency. But mostly what the players care about, is where they have been. If they raid and destroy a village, the next time they go there, it better not look like nothing ever happened. Also, I have found most players are forgiving on the internal consistency thing, if you are honest when you miss important details. Too much world building can make internal consistency harder sometimes, if you create so many details you can't remember them all. That said, world building helps you establish broader connections between factions, people, kingdoms and trends in your setting. There is something to be said for detailed world building. But it has to be balanced. Don't go crazy making a world, if the players just want to hunt alligators in the city sewers. Once things start getting political in a game, its hard not to fret a little about detail.

Draw back to a lot of world building: Too much detail can be a bad thing: Have you ever had someone explain one of those dense multivolume fantasy series that has a cast of hundreds and six different periods of history? I think when you focus too much on the details, or at least when you make the details neccessary to know to play, then players get annoyed. The easiest histories and storylines to follow are straight forward and familiar in some way. If a DM sets his campaign in a Roman Empire analogue, I immediately have a frame of reference. If a DM tells me his campaign is set on the post apocalyptic world of Cateryinyl, after the fifth age of quandar, its hard for me to hold onto the names in his setting. If he complicates it further by getting into geo-political minutiea, then he has lost me.

Is it possible to build as you go: Absolutely. There have always been two approaches to world building- Inside out, or outside in. You either start large, with a big picture and work your way inward; or you start small with a local setting, and flesh out the world as the PCs explore. Personally I think a combination of both is the best.

One last thing about world building. You don't build a detailed setting, just so you can dump those details on the players. In public speaking this is sometimes called a data dump, and it applies here. No one remembers if you list of 16 kings, 5 kingdoms, 7 rebellions and 1000 years of history in conversation. Only give the players the most critical and interesting details about your setting to start. Then draw from the remainder as needed. Introduce them as plot elements so they are memorable. Don't just mention, there is a group of bandits called the Green Guardians in the woods. Have them rob the players or kidnap them as they pass through. Maybe have the Green Guardian leader insult them or impress them with charisma. The best details of your world, are the ones the players experience first hand.

[Afrodyte]

Originally Posted by Hussar

For example, look at Romeo and Juliet. Fantastic play. One of the greats of the English language. But, so utterly lacking in world building that you can set it almost anywhere, from Verona, to modern day cities, to space ships, to steaming jungles without changing a word. Beyond the fact that you have two warring factions (why are they warring? Who cares?) and the lovers are from opposing factions, that's about all the setting you get.

This is pretty much how I prefer DMs to do their settings. I'm really not interested in history, cosmology, and such if it doesn't directly impact the plot or the PCs. Heck, part of the fun for me is having other players bring a piece of the world with them (a town, a political network, etc.) instead of the DM spoon-feeding it to them all the time.

The next game I'm running is clearly going to be based off of well-known myths, folktales, fairy tales, and theater. I'll see how far that takes me.

[Fallen Seraph]

Originally Posted by PrecociousApprentice

EDIT: Fallen Sereph, your creation process seems pretty close to mine. There is no defined space and time for any element in my campaign until it is introduced into my campaign. Anything that I come up with prior to play is just a sugestion for how I will use it in play, and I modify a lot based on the needs of the story. I like the terminology of Drag-and-Drop. It also seems to imply the reskinning and almost wholesale idea theft that I use a lot. This is a good addition. Thanks.

Hehe, no problem.

I would like to see Drag and Drop books. Dungeon Delve, sorta is like that in that you can take these encounters and put them into games. But it be nice to see a book with various refluffable concepts and setting ideas that one can take without any setting attachments. Perhaps with special mechanics, traps, terrain, etc. along with.

I agree too that it be nice to see more advice, resources, etc. allocated to the process of storytelling and not just world-building. My own view of gaming, and it being a story, etc. is heavily influenced by WoD which had lots to say about telling a story through rpgs, I found.

[PrecociousApprentice]

I never played any of the WoD games. I read V:tM in the early '90s, but never got anyone I knew to play it. My gaming background was heavily influenced by D&D, and I mostly missed a lot of the narrativist Indie games that seem to have been spawned by the Forge. I have played a few other RPGs, but mostly my gaming style has emerged from a lot of trial and error from D&D sessions. That might be why I feel that there is little support for a storytelling approach. D&D has not traditionally been promoted that way in the manuals. It is usually promoted by the official game materials in either two forms. Either a very railroady plot in most modules, or as a sandboxy worldbuilding exercise in any of the numerous campaign settings or the DMGs. There is little support for a PC directed and plot heavy approach.

As I have thought about this stuff, it seems to me that there is a spectrum between the two extremes of pure PC/plot directed and pure sandbox/worldbuilding. It seems like both of these methods can experience railroading in some form. The plot railroad is the most obvious of course, but the sandbox railroad exists as well. This form of railroad takes the form of DM imposed game elements in the world (Elves only live on the other side of the impassable mountains), or in the form of false choices (Sure you can go into those woods. You will be slaughtered by the dragon that lives there, but go ahead.) Both approaches have devices which allow the DM to limit player choice, even if the plot driven one is more obvious.

We all probably know what a sandbox campaign is. These campaigns are popular for the percieved PC choice. The thing is that this choice is limited to actions, not game elements. PCs can choose to interact with any of the DM predetermined game elements, but the players have no input into what elements are there, how those elements interact, or what those elements mean. This is basically just the ability to react to what the DM gives them to react to, and the choice is mostly about where you go. The world is established, and PCs interact with it, but have no choice in what the world is.

In a story style game, the same types of elements are present as are present in sandbox games, but the emphasis is placed on plot instead of place. This really just changes a lot of the focus from spatial relationships to temporal relationships. NPCs are present in both. You go from who, what, when, where, how, and why, with the PCs input being the mostly about a little when and a lot how, with almost no input into where as that is established solely by the DM before the start of play, to a model of who, what, when, where, how, and why, with the PC imput mostly in the form of how and why, with where being mostly color and the why being established at the start of the campaign.

Seems like player choice in sandbox play is mostly in the when and how. Player choice in plot driven play is in the how and why. DM purview in sandbox play is in the who, what, and especially where. DM purview in plot driven play is in the who, what, and especially when.

The goal for really good sandbox play is to create a well established world that is believable, provides the least limits on player choice in the when and how of play, and supports the goal of exploration. The goal of good plot driven play is to create a well established setting with a plot that is believable, provides the least limits on player choice in the how and why of play, and supports dramatic moments for the PCs.

We all know what kinds of things go into creating good sandbox play. This style of game has been promoted in all of the campaign creating advice in the DMG since basically there was a DMG. How do we go about creating a campaign that supports storytelling in the same way that sandbox play supports exploration? What would this style be called, and what would it look like? Are there examples of campaigns out there that are equal at achieving the goals of storytelling games to what sandbox play does for exploration? I have never played in a published adventure path, but are any of these close to what I ask? It seems to me that they wouldn't be unless they came with pregen characters that the path/story/plot was directed toward.

Just exploring here. Thanks ahead of time for any constructive feedback.

[Piratecat]

Originally Posted by Ourph

For someone who, apparently, doesn't like others putting words in his mouth, you seem to be doing an awful lot of that sort of thing yourself.

Which part of Rel's ultimatum was unclear?

Discuss, please. Don't bicker.

[Lanefan]

Originally Posted by ProfessorPain

Internal Consistency: I think record keeping and memory is the most important thing for internal consistency. But mostly what the players care about, is where they have been. If they raid and destroy a village, the next time they go there, it better not look like nothing ever happened. Also, I have found most players are forgiving on the internal consistency thing, if you are honest when you miss important details. Too much world building can make internal consistency harder sometimes, if you create so many details you can't remember them all.

You're absolutely right that record-keeping and memory are vital for internal consistency; which is why I'd better have things built first, as my in-session note-taking and memory are bad enough that the moment I start making important details up on the fly internal story consistency pretty much goes right out the window. On a small scale, such as winging a name of some NPC, it's no big deal. But if in one session I mention off the cuff that the Celts live to the north, and the players act on that; and 6 sessions later it becomes extremely relevant that they live to the west, I'm screwed.

That said, world building helps you establish broader connections between factions, people, kingdoms and trends in your setting. There is something to be said for detailed world building. But it has to be balanced. Don't go crazy making a world, if the players just want to hunt alligators in the city sewers.

Thing is, even if the only foes are the alligators I still have a ready-made world to use again.

Draw back to a lot of world building: Too much detail can be a bad thing: Have you ever had someone explain one of those dense multivolume fantasy series that has a cast of hundreds and six different periods of history? I think when you focus too much on the details, or at least when you make the details neccessary to know to play, then players get annoyed. The easiest histories and storylines to follow are straight forward and familiar in some way. If a DM sets his campaign in a Roman Empire analogue, I immediately have a frame of reference.

Exactly; and the details come in when figuring how that particular Roman-esque Empire came to be, what lands it holds, who the major figures are, what wars it's fighting, and so forth.

Is it possible to build as you go: Absolutely. There have always been two approaches to world building- Inside out, or outside in. You either start large, with a big picture and work your way inward; or you start small with a local setting, and flesh out the world as the PCs explore. Personally I think a combination of both is the best.

Again right. For my current campaign, for example, I started at a mid-level (one rapidly-declining Empire), then expanded to a macro-level (what other races and cultures live where outside the Empire and how do they get along; then some history), then went down closer to a micro-level (towns and villages around the starting area, and a starting adventure).

However, all of this was done before puck drop, without knowledge of who would actualy be playing or what characters they'd be running. I went in with the attitude of "I'll build the most interesting setting I can, and it's either gonna work or it isn't"; I'm happy to report that fortunately it's so far, so good.

One last thing about world building. You don't build a detailed setting, just so you can dump those details on the players. In public speaking this is sometimes called a data dump, and it applies here. No one remembers if you list of 16 kings, 5 kingdoms, 7 rebellions and 1000 years of history in conversation. Only give the players the most critical and interesting details about your setting to start. Then draw from the remainder as needed. Introduce them as plot elements so they are memorable. Don't just mention, there is a group of bandits called the Green Guardians in the woods. Have them rob the players or kidnap them as they pass through. Maybe have the Green Guardian leader insult them or impress them with charisma. The best details of your world, are the ones the players experience first hand.

Exactly! The built world is all background material, much of which may never see the light of day; and I don't care much if it does or not as long as we're all having fun. But dumping all the details right off the hop both overwhelms the players and does away with any sense of explorative mystery you might have had.

It took almost a year of play in my current game before any of my players saw a map of what lay beyond the Empire's borders; a map which I'd drawn over a year before the first session. Some here seem to think this is not the right way to do things, but I'll go with what works, thanks.

Lan-"did the lock hit while I was typing?"-efan

[Barastrondo]

This seems like an appropriate time to suggest an interesting essay on exposition through discovery, specifically discovery of something all D&D characters like: treasure!