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

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by Lanefan

If a DM goes into a campaign thinking it'll last 6 months, it'll very likely end in about 6 months; the DM's projected that expectation on to the players, and between their expectations and hers the campaign's got a short life expectancy.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. A short campaign can be very rewarding.

Especially - in my view - if you focus on the goals of the PCs and resolving them in whatever way the players choose. This does not mean a pre-plotted scenario.

[Lanefan]

Originally Posted by LostSoul

Not that there's anything wrong with that. A short campaign can be very rewarding.

Quite true. That said, were I in a campaign that ended after 6 months I'd still be waiting for it to really get going. (of course, by our standards 6 months is time enough for one long adventure or 2-3 shorter ones; we're not exactly the one-adventure-per-session crowd here...)

Especially - in my view - if you focus on the goals of the PCs and resolving them in whatever way the players choose. This does not mean a pre-plotted scenario.

Er...I don't see how this connects to campaign length or lack thereof; other than that the scale of the PCs' goals will in this instance somewhat determine the campaign length.

If their overall goal is to simply chase the Dragon out of the Lonely Mountain, then a 6-month campaign starting at mid-level should do.

If their overall goal is to start as commoners and eventually overthrow Ares, you're in for the long haul.

If, however, their overall goal is to get rich and get laid, you're done after about one session; two max. And whatever setting/world/adventure design you've done can be recycled into the next game, 'cause it didn't even get scratched by this lot.

@Hussar:

First off, don't use WotC's "market research" to attempt to prove any point to me; as I consider it both flawed and skewed away from gaming reality toward results more favourable to a profit-making enterprise.

Maybe I'm lucky, but the people I game with tend to run and play in campaigns averaging 7-10 years long, not counting one-offs. Sure, there's some that for whatever reasons (usually time constraints; occasionally DM incompetence whether admitted or not) don't really get off the ground; but even those were designed (mostly) with the long term in mind.

We're also lucky in that, unlike those who have to scrape for players, we have a pretty solid player base.

One of our crew last year started running a 3.5e Eberron game pretty much stock (I don't think he's slowed down level advancement); I'll be interested to see how long that lasts, as I rather suspect the levels will get out of hand long before the DM runs out of ideas for the game. Of course, the 2 TPKs in that game within the first two months didn't exactly speed things up much.

And as for unplanned abandonment and sharp left turns; without going into lots of war stories, I can think of:
- party having completed adventure A, or so we thought, and well on its way to adventure B (left turn #1) suddenly turns around and goes back to scene adventure A for no other reason than party infighting - this *saved* the DM's bacon, as we had missed the main hook for adventures B, C, D and E. The only instance I can think of where a left turn in effect cancelled out another left turn! (the second left turn was my doing, in complete ignorance that it'd actually turn out to be useful. The first left turn was a party decision-by-inertia)
- party sailing into literally uncharted waters, until the Hand of God comes down from the sky to block the way (I was not in this adventure)
- a character leaves the party and sets off on a solo world tour, with no other rationale except to make the DM map his world (I was in the party left behind)
- DM spends ages setting up a plotline, but the whole thing hinges on two characters meeting with a Hobgoblin NPC who (we learn years later) is a turncoat. One of the two characters leaves the other, meets and attacks the Hobgoblin (it's a bloody Hobgoblin, after all!), gets beaten, and flees; the other character leaves thinking all is well and not caring too much if it isn't. Scads of plot prep go out the window. (full disclosure: I - as Lanefan the character - was the guy who attacked the Hob.)
- party agree to take out G1 but once in the field suddenly decide to turn their backs on it and look for adventure anywhere else they can; they felt their employers weren't paying them enough (I was DMing this; madly flapping my wings for the next few sessions, and thank Goddess I'd at least mapped that part of the world and had a few vague ideas what might live in the places they went to)
- party in mid-adventure and on a clock, find a gate to another world and decide on the spur of the moment to hop through and see where it takes them (I was DM; I should have seen it coming, but flap flap flap...I have since learned there are some players who cannot resist the reddest of herrings...)
- tattered remains of a party in an off-plane adventure can't get back to the gate they arrived through, so decide to just get back to the Prime Material any way they can. They find a gate, but to the wrong world; and go through anyway. (I was DM, and that branch of the campaign ended at that point; the players already had other PCs elsewhere in the same game to pick up with)


That's all I can remember off the top. Complete left turns don't happen often, but often enough that one needs to be at least vaguely prepared with enough information about what's there that if they do decide to go where the map is blank, it ain't quite as blank as it looks.

Lanefan

[Hussar]

Ok, I'm going to try to explain my points in as objective terms as I can. I know this thread started off on very much the wrong foot. It hasn't helped that people have continually ignored the fact that I am NOT saying that world building=bad. I am saying that I think this approach

So, excuse me while I write a bit of a wall of text and explain my point in some detail. I want to go into why I've differed from the usually accepted definition of world building and the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.

Background

Some time ago I got tied into a rather lengthy thread about world building and whether it was a good or bad thing. That thread's been linked earlier in this thread if you really want to read it. One of the points that I tried to get across is that world building and setting construction are not synonymous.

The reason for this is setting is required in all texts, but world building is not. Setting at its most basic, is defined as where the plot occurs. Setting, by definition is absolutely intertwined with plot. Whether the setting is very sparse or detailed doesn't really matter - so long as the action of the story occurs there, it's setting. World building, on the other hand, is not required by a text. Waiting for Godot has a featureless plain and a bench for the entire setting. I don't think anyone would call that world building.

So, in my mind, there is a distinction between setting and world building. World building is defined as an attempt, in as much detail as possible, to create a complete fictional world. It is not tied to plot. It is an activity unto itself.

Now, bring that back to RPG's and suddenly all the world building advice you get in most RPG books takes on a different cast. If world building is an activity unto itself, is it particularly necessary to create a good campaign? In my view, no it is not.

Not that it can't be. Please, please don't think that I'm claiming that you can't do it that way. Obviously that's not true. One only has to look at Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or any other published setting and numerous fan based ones as well to know that you most certainly can.

But, I do think there is another approach.

So, there, enough of that. Let's get to the meat of things. The pros and cons of this approach.

1. One strength is that by starting the campaign in cooperation with the players is that the players are already egaged by the campaign. They have a stake in the campaign before it even starts since they have helped create it. Instead of being passive consumers of the campaign, picking from the menu created by the DM, they are active participants before they've even picked up the dice to create a character.

The disadvantage of this is the DM has to cede some authorial control over the campaign. If the players are going to have a stake in the campaign, then the DM can no longer simply do whatever he thinks is right. And, this does constrain the choices the DM has as well. If the group decides that they want to explore themes X and Y, the DM will have difficulty bringing in Z without consulting the players at all.

2. Less work load for the DM. This is pretty obvious. If you aren't going to spend time detailing the setting beyond elements that fit with the campaign that you and your players have discussed before hand, then you are not going to do as much work as the DM who has to create an entire country or more.

The downside of this, again, is a limit on the freedom of the players. That's true. Now, since the players have already bought into this campaign, that shouldn't be a huge issue - if we've decided as a group that the campaign is going to follow the adventures of a mercenary group during a war between elves and dwarves, player's shouldn't be complaining that they can't start dragon hunting. But, it is a limitation of scope at the outset.

Honestly, IMO, I think that limitation is usually done by DM's anyway. Most DM's are going to have some rough idea of what the campaign is going to be about before play starts, so, I'm not sure how much more constraining this is.

3. Better ties between players, characters and the campaign. Since everyone is already on board before you even start the campaign, you won't have the "random band of misfits meet in a bar" syndrome that plagues many campaigns. The players are already on board, so they should be making characters that not only fit with each other, but with the campaign itself.

You won't have players accidentally sidelining themselves because of miscommunications between the DM and the players over what the campaign is about. The players, hopefully since they had a hand in getting the campaign off the ground, have a pretty good idea of what the campaign is about already and should make characters that fit with that.

Again, the downside here is the DM has to trust his players and relax his grip on the campaign. Since the players had a hand in campaign creation, it is quite possible that they might pick elements that the DM may not 100% like but, is likely going to have to accept. Not that this will happen automatically, but, it certainly could.

Some sort of mechanism would need to be in place beforehand to resolve conflicts between aesthetic choices. Simple voting in the group might work.

4. This one is both a plus and a minus at the same time. The campaign is going to be tighter. It just is. The players and the DM are all on the same page at the outset (or should be) which means that the campaign is going to be much more focused than a standard campaign. This is good in that I think that it will result in deeper role play - less time spent screwing around and more time spent exploring the pre-defined themes. On the downside, it will likely result in shorter campaigns since, once your finished exploring this theme, you're done. To be honest, I think this style of campaign design lends itself more to narrative (gack I hate Forgisms) style play where exploring themes and concepts is more important than simulating or systems.

So, there you have it. The giant wall of text. Perhaps I should have written this several pages ago, but it took me this long to work it out in my own head. Whatcha think?

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Hussar, it is your preferred mode that might be likened to writing a novel; those of us who prefer "campaigns" in the traditional gaming sense see a "plot-line" as anathema.

If your campaigns feature absolutely no plot, do you only game with random encounter tables and terrain generators? Do you NPC's simply not speak, have no personality or goals of their own? Is there no storyline beyond killing the next orc?

Cos, if there is, then you have a plot and your entire line of thinking here makes no sense.

Had you indeed been "simply offering an alternative", then much of this thread should not have arisen. What you have actually done is attack as inferior (or even beyond your belief) what does not suit you -- which happens to be the game of D&D as it was formerly known (and in some circles is still played).

I came on too strong at the start of this thread and I backed away from that. Fair cop. I admit to that. However, are you honestly going to tell me that completely abandoning storylines is a regular occurrence in your game?

If it is, I would suggest that the story lines in your game need some serious work.

Your "alternative" has been offered plentifully by TSR and WotC over the past 20 years. Whatever lies beyond the set path of the module does not matter. Those wanting more should buy a product (e.g., the FORGOTTEN REALMSTM setting) rather than creating. If you must get creative, then devote your attention to plot, theme, character development, yadda yadda ... all a really, really old line that has padded the page count of more 2E, 3E and 4E books than I care to contemplate.

No, they really haven't. Right in the front of the 3e DMG section on building campaigns, they talk about having to world build. This is most definitely not an Edition Warz thing and I'll thank you not to turn it into such.

Or, put it another way, are you honestly going to tell me that the 1e DMG does NOT focus a great deal of advice on world building? That Greyhawk didn't develop pretty much exactly the way that standard world building styles work? That you can't look at CanonFire! and say, wow, those guys really focus on elements other than setting?

This has been the standard for how campaigns are created since day 1. Start with your world, then start putting stuff in. I'm saying that's backward. Start with the stuff and then make the world that fits with that stuff.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Hussar

It hasn't helped that people have continually ignored the fact that I am NOT saying that world building=bad.

That is because, quite frequently, your actual statements contradict your denial that this is what you are saying.

Some time ago I got tied into a rather lengthy thread about world building and whether it was a good or bad thing.

I remember that thread well. It started off by describing world building in extremely negative terms, and ended up with a disclaimer that you were not trying to say that world building was bad, followed by the distinction (made by others) that apparently you were trying to say that bad world building was bad, and that the term "world building" should only apply if the activity is bad.

That thread's been linked earlier in this thread if you really want to read it.

I would recommend reading it, if only for perspective on the rationality of the arguments presented therein.

One of the points that I tried to get across is that world building and setting construction are not synonymous.

It is acceptable to say that "setting construction" is a subset of world building, if one can accurately define some aspect of the world that is not setting, and some aspect of construction that is not building.

AFAICT, no one has ever performed world building in relation to a role-playing game with the express intent that the material not be used. I therefore posit that what you term "world building" (as opposed to "setting construction") is, in fact, an empty set.

Setting at its most basic, is defined as where the plot occurs.

Not so. Setting, at its most basic, is defined as location. In its interelationship with plot, setting includes not only where the action occurs, but also the context in which the action occurs.

Setting, by definition is absolutely intertwined with plot.

Again, not so. One can quite easily have a setting ("railroad station", say) without any plot at all. Moreover, the action need not have a predetermined plot.

The term "plot" has more than one definiton, which you seem unable to avoid conflating. In the context of this discussion, the relevant definitions are

1. plan secretly, usually something illegal; "They plotted the overthrow of the government"
   
2. the story that is told in a novel or play or movie etc.; "the characters were well drawn but the plot was banal"
   
3. devise the sequence of events in (a literary work or a play, movie, or ballet); "the writer is plotting a new novel"

When one refers to an "NPC plot", they are referring to the first item on the list. The second items are intertwined; the third is the verb which leads to the second. Many, many people believe that a role-playing game does not need -- indeed, is better without -- a pre-devised storyline.

The difference is twofold.

(1) Writers plot out stories because the characters are unable to take independent action. The plot is what will happen. The more tightly the GM writes out a story, therefore, the more severely constrained the actions of the player characters within the game world will be.

(2) Many players believe that the story is what occurs as the result of game events. Until those events have unfolded, the story itself is unknown. It is the interaction of player choices and the world (including NPCs) devised as the setting that create the "plot". The game, simply put, is not pre-plotted.

World building, on the other hand, is not required by a text. Waiting for Godot has a featureless plain and a bench for the entire setting. I don't think anyone would call that world building.

You would be wrong.

There is a reason that Waiting for Godot uses such a stark setting. Devising that setting is devising the context of the play, and adds strongly to the thematic elements.

Choosing what not to include is as important as -- in many cases, more important than -- choosing what to include when world building.

So, in my mind, there is a distinction between setting and world building. World building is defined as an attempt, in as much detail as possible, to create a complete fictional world. It is not tied to plot. It is an activity unto itself.

Again, you merely demonstrate that you do not understand the terms you are using, either in relation to literature or gaming. And, again, if you look at your next paragraph, below,

Now, bring that back to RPG's and suddenly all the world building advice you get in most RPG books takes on a different cast. If world building is an activity unto itself, is it particularly necessary to create a good campaign? In my view, no it is not.

one can easily see that you are re-defining terms so as to create an empty set. There is no "world building advice you get in most RPG books" that suggests the creation of material with the goal that it not be used. As you define world building, your query

If world building is an activity unto itself, is it particularly necessary to create a good campaign?

can be seen as essentially meaningless.

IOW, you are asking "Is the creation of materials that you do not intend to use particularly necessary to create a good campaign?" Not only is this not particularly necessary in your view, it is not particularly helpful on the basis of the definitions used.

You then to on to say

Not that it can't be. Please, please don't think that I'm claiming that you can't do it that way. Obviously that's not true. One only has to look at Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or any other published setting and numerous fan based ones as well to know that you most certainly can.

But, I do think there is another approach.

but the approach of "Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or any other published setting and numerous fan based ones as well" are all AFAICT based upon the idea that the material will be used. IOW, none of these products fall within the empty set you have created, and therefore you cannot rationally contrast "another approach" with them as though they were part of that empty set.

Also, while you say

So, there, enough of that. Let's get to the meat of things. The pros and cons of this approach.

you haven't actually bothered to define the approach you are looking at. From what I can glean from your Pros and Cons, you are advocating the world building approach described in great detail in the 2e book, Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide. You can find it here: Amazon.com: Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb... .

One notes that this is far from the antithesis of published advice that you seem to think it is.


RC

[Raven Crowking]

double post

[Ariosto]

If your campaigns feature absolutely no plot, do you only game with random encounter tables and terrain generators? Do you NPC's simply not speak, have no personality or goals of their own? Is there no storyline beyond killing the next orc?

It does not appear to me that the real world has a storyline. Seasons come and go, animals are predators or prey, people do all the myriad things that people do ... but for their own reasons, not as "supporting cast" following a script about me. We tell stories about events that have occurred, but the shape of things to come is uncertain.

Moldvay Basic is the first D&D rules set in which I recall attention being given to a literary model. The advice to the DM was "A. Choose a scenario" and then "B. Decide on a setting." The scenario was just thematic (Destroying an Ancient Evil, Visiting a Lost Shrine, Escaping from Enemies, etc.) -- a "hook" rather than a dramatic structure -- but still a step away from emphasis on creating an environment and letting the players decide on their motivations in dealing with it.

Note that many such "hooks" would be provided for in a traditional campaign design, but they would be possibilities rather than set scenarios.

The shift to "planning a story" really got underway (as far as D&D went) in 2nd ed. AD&D. The "linear dungeon" (like "kosher pork" to traditionalists) is something of which I saw a lot in the 3E period, and have seen continued apparently as the default model in 4E. "Adventure path" (perhaps AKA "railroad"?) seems to have become the prevalent campaign concept, building on the "playing modules" approach that became widespread in the 2E era.

"What's necessary" depends upon what one is trying to accomplish.

As a prerequisite for "designing for the story" is that "the story" already exists, there is a limit on what one can design -- a scope in inverse proportion to the freedom players are allowed.

If players have the freedom to explore the world as in a traditional D&D campaign, then there must be world to explore. Starting small in terms of what is given much detail is the standard advice, but not for fear of wasted effort. To have some details worked out in an ever wider radius as the campaign progresses is to provide continually more opportunities for "stories" to emerge in play. In the long run, almost anything is likely to come into play -- but to get started playing need not entail very much preparation.

[Lanefan]

There's a fine-line definition here that, if looked at, might - just might - make this a bit easier for all to grok.

From what I'm reading, there's a dichotomy between some who suggest only that which *will* be interacted with by the PCs should be pre-planned (the "setting-constructionists") and others who suggest that much more should be pre-planned regardless of what the PCs ever do.

Well, the difference lies in what the PCs might *potentially* do.

If you're going in to a campaign that you've got tightly story-lined enough that you *know* the party's only ever going to visit Realm A, City-State B, Town C, and a bunch of adventures in between, then all you need to design is the realm, the city-state, the town, and the adventures; as those exhaust the PCs' interaction potential.

But if you're starting a campaign where after the first two adventures you have no bloody idea where the PCs are going to go, you need to pre-design a lot more to handle the *potential* of the PCs interacting with it; not down to exacting detail or even FR/Greyhawk-level detail, but enough that you vaguely know what's where and who's where and you have a rough map of how it all fits together. A few shreds of history never hurt either. Yes, there's a 99.9% chance you'll design some stuff that is never used, but big deal; you have no way of knowing this until the campaign is over, by which time it's too late anyway so who cares?

Lanefan

[Fallen Seraph]

Originally Posted by Lanefan

But if you're starting a campaign where after the first two adventures you have no bloody idea where the PCs are going to go, you need to pre-design a lot more to handle the *potential* of the PCs interacting with it; not down to exacting detail or even FR/Greyhawk-level detail, but enough that you vaguely know what's where and who's where and you have a rough map of how it all fits together. A few shreds of history never hurt either. Yes, there's a 99.9% chance you'll design some stuff that is never used, but big deal; you have no way of knowing this until the campaign is over, by which time it's too late anyway so who cares?

I dunno if one needs to go down to even that level of detail though. Now, this depends on your view of the world, consistency, etc, etc. But if takes the view of, "let the PCs dictate the world" then one need not be as concrete with pre-planning of a world.

I am sure you probably have seen me mention the drag-and-drop style. Well by using that one can quickly build wherever the PCs are going by taking these components and addressing them to what the PCs are planning on doing/planning to go too. Of course to not be predictable one would spice it up, add mystery, etc. But this be other components dragged into the core drag-and-drop element. Thus one need not know what the setting is like at all till the player's actions dictate the shape of the world.

The benefit I find of this model, is that allows you to not be curtailed by what has been laid down. If the actions of the PCs and the plot they are unravelling (since discussing my own view here I am stating there is a plotline) in a certain manner you can lay down the groundwork without bashing into any pre-determined setting elements since there is none.

So while yes, some pre-design is a good thing I don't think it need be anything concrete or mapped out. Something as simple as a mind-map and resource of locations, NPCs, etc. can suffice and be potentially more beneficial to the unfolding events. I think a lot of this goes down to simply the style of campaign and ones view of the world, ie; does the events (story or simply actions of PCs) dictate the shape of the world, or has the shape of the world been already predetermined and the PCs are reacting to it.

[PrecociousApprentice]

I think that I would echo Fallen Seraph here and also elaborate on what you said Lanefan. What you wrote in your post is getting exactly at what the subtle difference is. Fallen Seraph points out the you do need to plan so that you can stay at least one step ahead of the characters, and the nature of that planning can potentiate or hinder your ability to improvise.

I would again say that the big difference between worldbuilders and setting constructors is that for a worldbuilder, maps of physical areas are important. They help them to crystalize the relationships of the elements of the world around the PCs. This helps because you can't control what the PCs do, so if you know where things are, you can respond easily. Maps can be the bane of a setting constructor. Having a crystalized set of geographical relationships hinders a DMs ability to drop elements into his game wherever he wants them, and hinders his ability to respond in a plot apropriate manner.

For a setting constructionist, the maps that are created are mostly non-geograpgic. They are relationship maps, and have the PCs at the center somewhere. They are temporal maps, with the actions loosely mapped out and many flexibilities build in in the form of contingiencies. They basically take the shape of a mostly linear timeline, with several plot defining chioces, consequences of these choices, many drag-and-drop elements that help to stear errant PCs back to where the action is, and tons of flexibility for inprov.

A setting constructionist basically formulates an idea of what the bad guys are doing, and the events that are the result of that. This plot has to be something that will grab the PCs. Next, he creates many elements through which the PCs can interact with the bag guy's plans. These do not have to be mapped to a timeline. They are best if they are drag-and-drop. Each of these should give some information about the ongoing plot, preferably in ways that are hard to miss. Some of these elements should not require players to incite them, so that the DM has room to nudge a group of floundering PCs. They should also be as site independent as possible, so that the DM can just throw them at the PCs. All of these elements should address the themes, goals of play, and allow character growth and exposition, as well as paint an expanding picture of the plot, without requiring a certain outcome.

I think that the big difference is that the worldbuilder focuses on the geography and the world, while the setting constructionist focuses on the action that the PCs will find themselves in. Worldbuilding is a very multidimensional process, with at least two dimensions of a map, as well as a third in time, and many more in the economies, politics, etc... Setting construction is likely more linear. It focuses on events. This focus on time instead of space makes setting construction more efficient, because playing an RPG is an event, it is a linear structure. There will be tons of material that is not addressed in a worldbuilder's campaign. A good setting constructionist can minimize these inefficiencies.

I bet I am about to get flamed by people claiming that this sounds very much like a railroad. It is not for a couple of reasons, or at least not any more than a campaign with an intricately detailed world but no plot.

Detailed worlds place restrictions on PC action just as much as detailed plots. Detailed worlds specify where things will interacted with, and what those things are. The PCs can choose where to go, and what to do, but they have to go to specific places to do things, and there is no guarantee that there is anything interesting to do there. Just a detailed area of the map. That is a limitation on PC action. Detailed plots specify what things happen to the PCs and why, but not necessarily where, and definitely do not demand a certain response by the PCs. The response of the PCs is completely open during play. I would contend that this is what heroism actually is. Responding to bad situations in a good way. If you want to play heros, it is much easier in a plot driven campaign.

To address your concern about needing to know where a campaign is headed if you ignore worldbuilding, I would say partially you are right. You have to have an idea of what the point of the campaign is. You need to have decided on some specific goals, some themes to address, and have a good idea of the characters involved. Other than that, you can have a great plot driven campaign by staying just one step ahead of the PCs. This method of setting construction is analogous to the the inside out method of worldbuilding. Start small, build from there. I feel like this can be even easier in a setting oriented campaign because you have not been locked into much geographically. You have to stay on top of events and characters, and you will need a supply of drag-and-drop elements, but otherwise prep can be minimized.

[Beginning of the End]

Originally Posted by PrecociousApprentice

The other big distinction is that with improv, you don't need to come up with anything extra.

That sounds like the exact same distinction.

I advocate not detailing too much, so that you eliminate the rails. Everyone "railroads" to some degree if they prep but not improvise.

You're working from a false premise. Proper prep eliminates the rails. A railroad is, in fact, defined by a lack of prep.

None are likely to be unused, unless the PCs skip things or ingore the prep entirely. This is likely a breach of social contract.

This is another false premise. There are plenty of games in which the PCs are expected to skip things they don't find interesting.

Only minimally, and only with reference to what the PCs will need for this adventure. "Sinig city on the coast, not far from the derelict ship, white marble city in Greek arcitecture style, with a huge mountain behind it." The rest can be improvised.

In other words, you answer the questions: Where is it? What's it like? But you don't answer the question, "What can the PCs do there?" Even though you claim that all prep should be aimed at the PCs. Would you care to explain the obvious discrepancy in your position?

Sure, the parts that might be a battle site should have a map. Otherwise a short description and improv are sufficient.

No. You need the villains' stats if you want to have a fight. Nothing else is needed. Improvise at the table if the PCs decide to fight the navy.

What you're failing to acknowledge is that the GM isn't making the decision of "where will the PCs fight on this ship". Nor is he making the decision "will the PCs fight the navy?". The PCs are making those decisions (or, at the very least, contributing heavily to them).

You, OTOH, have a vision of the story that you want to tell. You claim that you're "open to other possibilities", but you also advocate the type of limited, narrow-minded prep that you admit causes "everyone" to "railroad to some degree".

The only way you know that (a) the PCs will board there derelict and fight the villain, but (b) not attempt to fight or evade the Tharsis navy is if you either railroad them or have an amazing gift of prescience.

And that's why you're running into problems in this thread: You're refusing to acknowledge that not everyone runs their games the way that you do.

By your own description, you not only design elements of the world, you also pre-determine their purpose. You don't just design a "derelict", you design a "derelict that the PCs are supposed to explore". You don't just design a "bad guy on the ship", you design a "bad guy on the ship that the PCs are supposed to fight". You don't just design a "Tharsis navy", you design a "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to".

But I don't GM like that. I design a "derelict" and then I let the PCs do whatever they want with it. Explore it? Sink it? Tow it? Repair it? Fight on the deck? Fight below decks? Fight while swinging from the tattered rigging? Whatever happens, happens.

Saying, "You should only design the parts of the ship that might be part of the battle site." is a nonsensical instruction for my style of gaming. Battle site? I don't even know if there's going to be a battle. I certainly don't know where on the ship that battle is going to take place.

You said that you felt "insulted" because I suggested that you just flat-out don't understand how other people play the game. But then you posted a message confirming that you don't, in fact, understand how other people play the game.

Originally Posted by Hussar

World Building - the act of creating background that is independent of plot. The act of creating background FOR IT'S OWN PURPOSE.

Setting Building - the act of creating background that is dependent on plot. The act of creating background TO SERVE THE GAME/STORY.

But if you GM like I do, then the distinction is non-existent. Elements of the game world are like toys in a child's playroom. Your game features structured play time -- you have selected very specific toys that the children can play with and you even have some guidelines on how they're expected to play with them. There's nothing wrong with that. And, in that context, it's fair to say, "You shouldn't buy toys that the kids aren't going to play with."

But my game, OTOH, just features a playroom full of toys and the kids are allowed to play with whatever they want and however they want. In that context saying, "You shouldn't buy toys that the kids aren't going to play with." is meaningless. I buy a toy, I put it in the playroom, and they either play with it or they don't.

Within the confines of the analogy it still makes sense to prioritize my toy buying budget based on the types of toys I know the kids like to play with. And maybe there's some sort of rigorous methodology for organizing the toys, so I shouldn't buy toys that would be placed on high shelves the kids probably can't reach (i.e., designing a village on the far side of the game world that the PCs are unlikely to go to).

But the distinction between "toys they can play with" and "toys they can't play with"? Doesn't exist. They can play with all the toys and they can play with them however they like.

And the reason why D&D rulebooks and magazine articles are predominated by articles supporting my style of play and not your style of play is because that's been the default style of D&D play since 1974.

[PrecociousApprentice]

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

You're working from a false premise. Proper prep eliminates the rails. A railroad is, in fact, defined by a lack of prep.

Prepping makes the rails. Whether you insist on placing an element in play or you do not place an element in play, by deciding what is "playable" you have created rails to some degree. It was the prep that did that. No matter what or how you prepared. You made the rails.

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

This is another false premise. There are plenty of games in which the PCs are expected to skip things they don't find interesting.

This is actually part of the point in how I advocate preparing for a game. Make sure that the elements in your game will be interesting to the players. This is accomlished with goal setting, theme setting, and character creation. The DM then addresses these things. If you do this, you virtually eliminate the possibility that you introduce things that the players are not interested in.

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

In other words, you answer the questions: Where is it? What's it like? But you don't answer the question, "What can the PCs do there?" Even though you claim that all prep should be aimed at the PCs. Would you care to explain the obvious discrepancy in your position?

The most important thing to ask yourself when introducing something into a campaign is "Why is it there?" When you do this, the where and what become important. Otherwise, it is just scenery. Don't stress too much about it.

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

What you're failing to acknowledge is that the GM isn't making the decision of "where will the PCs fight on this ship". Nor is he making the decision "will the PCs fight the navy?". The PCs are making those decisions (or, at the very least, contributing heavily to them).

This is taken care of if yuo have a decent idea of why you are introducing the element, and how you will introduce it, and who you are introducing it to. Goals, themes, and characters. If you don't know what yours are, you will have a hard time making predictions about what will happen.

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

You, OTOH, have a vision of the story that you want to tell. You claim that you're "open to other possibilities", but you also advocate the type of limited, narrow-minded prep that you admit causes "everyone" to "railroad to some degree".

Everyone reailroads. It is the process of defining your world/story that accomplishes this. The only way to avoid it is to ad hoc, improvise, and never say no. If you prep, you have defined the world, and you are eliminating possibilities. That is essentially a railroad.

My vision of the story comes from what the players have told me that they want to accomplish, and the characters that they have given me to accomplish it. I just create a crisis for them to act on. The story emerges from play. I don't "determine" it. I give them the opportunity to tell the story that they have told me that they want to. Plot =/= story. Plot as far as Iam concerned is what the bad guys plan, and ways that I have prepared to clue them into this. The rest is up to them. I do throw a lot of things at them to get them going, but it is up to them to determing what they make of it.

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

The only way you know that (a) the PCs will board there derelict and fight the villain, but (b) not attempt to fight or evade the Tharsis navy is if you either railroad them or have an amazing gift of prescience.

And that's why you're running into problems in this thread: You're refusing to acknowledge that not everyone runs their games the way that you do.

It is not prescience if you set it up right. It is not railroading if you allow them to choose. It is easy to reskin another drag-and-drop encounter to use for the unforseen event of the Navy attack.

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

By your own description, you not only design elements of the world, you also pre-determine their purpose. You don't just design a "derelict", you design a "derelict that the PCs are supposed to explore". You don't just design a "bad guy on the ship", you design a "bad guy on the ship that the PCs are supposed to fight". You don't just design a "Tharsis navy", you design a "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to".

The purpose that I design is in what they can get out of the element. They can interact in any way they want. I set the stage and they take it. The purpose that I have in mind is to allow them to choose how they interact with it, and to clue them into what is going on. An element that I introduce will give the players a choice and will give them information as to what the bag guys are doing. They still make meaningful choices. I never have results set in stone. I introduce opportunities, and then improvise. A "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to". Would never happen in my campaign. A "Tharsis navy that may open these doors for the PCs". The Pcs still have to opne the door.

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

But I don't GM like that. I design a "derelict" and then I let the PCs do whatever they want with it. Explore it? Sink it? Tow it? Repair it? Fight on the deck? Fight below decks? Fight while swinging from the tattered rigging? Whatever happens, happens.

This is exactly what I do. I just always do it in context of the goals of play, the themes of play, the characters, and the evolving plot. There would be no derelict if one of those things didn't demand it. I don't demand that they do a certain thing with it. I just only add it if it is directly related to the story that the PCs are creating. And I make sure that any player initiated elements in the story are not the only thing that will allow the story to advance.

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

Saying, "You should only design the parts of the ship that might be part of the battle site." is a nonsensical instruction for my style of gaming. Battle site? I don't even know if there's going to be a battle. I certainly don't know where on the ship that battle is going to take place.

If the monster attacks there, it will be a battle site, if only for as long as it takes the PCs to retreat. If it is all underwater except for the foredeck, then only the foredeck needs to exist. It seems that you are just objecting to object. You do have PCs get attacked, don't you?

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

You said that you felt "insulted" because I suggested that you just flat-out don't understand how other people play the game. But then you posted a message confirming that you don't, in fact, understand how other people play the game.

I fully understand your style of play. I played that way for years. You obviously do not understand mine.

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

But if you GM like I do, then the distinction is non-existent. Elements of the game world are like toys in a child's playroom. Your game features structured play time -- you have selected very specific toys that the children can play with and you even have some guidelines on how they're expected to play with them. There's nothing wrong with that. And, in that context, it's fair to say, "You shouldn't buy toys that the kids aren't going to play with."

But my game, OTOH, just features a playroom full of toys and the kids are allowed to play with whatever they want and however they want. In that context saying, "You shouldn't buy toys that the kids aren't going to play with." is meaningless. I buy a toy, I put it in the playroom, and they either play with it or they don't.

Within the confines of the analogy it still makes sense to prioritize my toy buying budget based on the types of toys I know the kids like to play with. And maybe there's some sort of rigorous methodology for organizing the toys, so I shouldn't buy toys that would be placed on high shelves the kids probably can't reach (i.e., designing a village on the far side of the game world that the PCs are unlikely to go to).

But the distinction between "toys they can play with" and "toys they can't play with"? Doesn't exist. They can play with all the toys and they can play with them however they like.

OK, I'll extend your analogy. If you just ask what the players want to play, then maybe you don't need to buy all those toys. If a kid doesn't want to play with dolls, don't buy dolls. If you need new toys every day or so, only buy the toys that you know that they will play with for the next few days. If it is July, you can ask them about whether they like baseball, and if they say yes and want to play baseball, don't worry about skis.

If you are forming a baseball team, then making sure that all your toy purchases are aimed at playing baseball is a good thing. A baseball coach could spend plenty of time buying hula hoops, and that might even be OK, the most efficient purchases will be baeball equipment, with the idea that they have a use for what you are doing.

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

And the reason why D&D rulebooks and magazine articles are predominated by articles supporting my style of play and not your style of play is because that's been the default style of D&D play since 1974.

This is very true. I think that there is a chicken and egg problem though. Is it the default style of play because it was placed in the rulebook, or was it placed in the rulebook because it is the default style of play? Does it really matter if there is another style that would work at least as well if not better? Should we restrict the advocacy of play styles to what we have mostly always done, or start talking about other ways, just to make sure that people are aware of them?

[Beginning of the End]

Originally Posted by PrecociousApprentice

Prepping makes the rails. Whether you insist on placing an element in play or you do not place an element in play, by deciding what is "playable" you have created rails to some degree. It was the prep that did that. No matter what or how you prepared. You made the rails.

This is simply not true. Railroading is defined by a lack of choice -- which means a lack of prep. Whether you're doing that as pre-prep or improv-prep is irrelevant.

This is actually part of the point in how I advocate preparing for a game. Make sure that the elements in your game will be interesting to the players. This is accomlished with goal setting, theme setting, and character creation. The DM then addresses these things. If you do this, you virtually eliminate the possibility that you introduce things that the players are not interested in.

Unless, of course, the goal of the campaign is about meaningful choice. Meaningful choice, you'll note, means that there is inherently a road not taken.

This is taken care of if yuo have a decent idea of why you are introducing the element, and how you will introduce it, and who you are introducing it to.

The PCs making decisions is "taken are of" if the GM makes the decisions instead? Well, yes. That's exactly what I said. And it's why you keep getting accused of railroading, BTW.

Everyone reailroads.

(1) If that's actually true, then why did you consider it "insulting" when I said you railroaded?

(2) If your definition of "railroad" is actually so broad that "everybody does it", then your definition not only fails to match up with the actual common usage of the term (which makes it useless) it also renders it meaningless (which also makes it useless).

The purpose that I design is in what they can get out of the element. They can interact in any way they want. I set the stage and they take it.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "you shouldn't design X because the PCs will never interact wth it" and then say "the PCs are free to interact with X any way they want".

This is very true. I think that there is a chicken and egg problem though. Is it the default style of play because it was placed in the rulebook, or was it placed in the rulebook because it is the default style of play?

We know the answer to that one: Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax were both running campaigns before there was a rulebook. Those campaigns used that style of play. That style of play went into the rulebook they wrote.

I fully understand your style of play. I played that way for years. You obviously do not understand mine.

I understand your style of play just fine. I just don't understand why you insist on claiming it as the One True Way. I also don't understand why your posts contradict themselves in a completely incoherent way.

[underthumb]

If anyone thought my prior post was hyperbole, let's take some key quotes from different individuals:

Prepping makes the rails. Whether you insist on placing an element in play or you do not place an element in play, by deciding what is "playable" you have created rails to some degree. It was the prep that did that. No matter what or how you prepared. You made the rails.

Preparation is basically railroading!

You don't just design a "derelict", you design a "derelict that the PCs are supposed to explore". You don't just design a "bad guy on the ship", you design a "bad guy on the ship that the PCs are supposed to fight". You don't just design a "Tharsis navy", you design a "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to".

But I don't GM like that. I design a "derelict" and then I let the PCs do whatever they want with it. Explore it? Sink it? Tow it? Repair it? Fight on the deck? Fight below decks? Fight while swinging from the tattered rigging? Whatever happens, happens.

Your campaign is hobbled by prior intention! Whereas I design things with no ostensible game purpose! This may seem impossible, but my perception of future player actions is always equipotential!

I submit that these quotes are astounding and continue to dilute the concept of railroading into nothingness. As a GM, you always have the curse of knowledge: you cannot not suspect what your players will do, and this will never fail to influence your design choices unless you're throwing darts at a wall of encounters.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by underthumb

Preparation is basically railroading!

.....But if we change the meaning of words, we say do all kinds of crazy things!

It shouldn't be difficult to realize that, if prep limits options by only allowing for what is prepped, not prepping limits options even further by only allowing what can be prepped on the fly.

If in any period X, you can come up with an average of Y options, if you spend X(n) time, you can come up with an average of Y(n) options. It is almost tautological that additional prep time leads to increased options.

This is just another reformation of the arguments refuted upthread, where a premise is floated on the basis of an empty set that is supposedly its antithesis. In this case, the empty set where prep work becomes railroading.


RC

[PrecociousApprentice]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

If in any period X, you can come up with an average of Y options, if you spend X(n) time, you can come up with an average of Y(n) options. It is almost tautological that additional prep time leads to increased options.

Except that improv at the table is collaborative, and so is much more efficient than time spent on prep before the game. On top of that, you only have to come up with the stuff that the characters do. Ignoring this is why you are having a problem understanding.

[Beginning of the End]

Originally Posted by PrecociousApprentice

Except that improv at the table is collaborative, and so is much more efficient than time spent on prep before the game. On top of that, you only have to come up with the stuff that the characters do. Ignoring this is why you are having a problem understanding.

Raven Crowking had a very precise point which you ignored completely in order to post more of your non sequiturs. Would you care to try again?

[Ariosto]

Precocious Apprentice, it is simply not going to work: we are not going to accept a redefinition of "railroad" jargon derived from playing D&D, such that it could even apply to the choice of playing D&D! ("But it's not Toon! Railroader!")

[Ariosto]

Again, the kind and amount of preparation that's appropriate depends on what you want to do -- and where that intersects with what you can do.

In terms of time, energy and number of players, a full-fledged campaign of the scope of Blackmoor, Greyhawk or Tékumel may be impractical for many of us.

On the other hand, the extremely limited sort that depends on the assumption of The Party being a constant may likewise be impractical.

Having to go through the "redesign with players" process often would I think pretty obviously be a drag. At the extreme, it would mean a session of such prep -- plus however much more prep the GM must do -- for just one session of play.

Here's another "chicken and egg" for you: Did TSR and WotC simply reflect the growing preponderance of the fixed 4-6 player team with the same characters always on the same mission and tuning in at the same Bat-time on the same Bat-day each week ... or did players come to take that for granted because it's what the corporation promoted?

We can ask the same about the notion that D&D should be about following a DM-provided story line instead of exploring a DM-provided world.

In a broad range of circumstances between extremes, the replay value of "world building" elements is very telling. It cuts down need for further preparation eventually (and that's not after very long, in my experience) to the point that one can run engaging sessions "on the fly."

If one has run weekly sessions for a couple of years, the world is likely to be so "lived in" that fleshing out part of it is as easy as picturing part of the real world.

[PrecociousApprentice]

The thing is, there are three arguments going on in this thread.

1) All prep is good vs not all prep is good.
2) Having a reason for placing an encounter/element in your campaign is good vs. having a reason in mind is railroading.
3) Planning inherently creates better games than improv vs. improv can get to the same place as planning.

They often get confused within this thread.

Railroading- Limiting meaningful choice or the players. Sometimes with the contentious additions of "with or without conscious DM action/intervention" and/or "with or without player objection."

I am not trying to redefine railroad. It has been shown by many threads that have discussed railroading that there is no real consensual definition of railroading. The points I have made are that there are characteristics of railroading in every campaign. It is impossible not to. When the DM makes a choice, the players are denied the opportunity to make that choice. Defining the world is the DM imposing a shape to the campaign. This is fundamentally no different than defining the plot. It is just defining a different element of the campaign. It is just focusing on developing the story and not developing the world. Setting construction can avoid the railroad by allowing significant player choice within the plot. Not all possible choices are meaningful. By asking about what types of choices are significant for the players, the group, the campaign, and the characters, the story based game can address those choices that are meaningful without having to resort to the shotgun approach needed by worldbuilders. Both worldbuilding and setting construction rely on improv to some degree. Worldbuilding relies on improv for creating the action and plot. Setting construction relies on improv for the details of the world. The communication issue exists because you cannot see all of this.

The players retain as much meaningful choice in a story oriented game as a world oriented game, if they are both done right. Since the story oriented design is directly addressing the play/story, and world is directly addressing the world, the story design should be more efficient at giving the players meaningful choices. It is my experience that it is. I have used both methods, even successfully. These two activities exist on a spectrum. No one exclusively worldbuilds. No one exclusively constructs setting. The more toward setting you are, the greater your likelihood of maximizing out-of-game prep efficiency, since you directly address the meaningful choices.

I agree with RC that prep is good. I disagree with the implication that worldbuilding is best way to be prepared, or that it addresses which things are best prepared and which things are best improvised. I would contend that the most efficient way of establishing a world in your campaign is to do it at the table. Prep time for a game is best spent addressing meaningful choice, not the specific details of any element. Worldbuilding is successful if enough time is spent preparing to account for enough world elements that the players find at least one meaningful, and then be flexible in play. Setting construction is successful if the communication is good enough to determine what subset of all possible choices would be meaningful, and address those. Then be flexible in play.

If you need X elements that are meaningful to have a meaningful choice, and you need (X+n) choices in a campaign constructed with the worldbuilding method to ensure that there are X meaningful elements, while through communication, setting building, and improv you can produce just those X meaningful elements, then to use the verbiage above, it is almost tautological that it is more efficient to just ensure that you address the meaningful choices through setting construction and improv.

RC made two "precise" points. The first was that changing meanings of words can lead to changed logical outcomes. This is true. This is the point of this thread. This is not a bad thing. This is the creation of knowledge. Defining and redefining. That is how we progress intellectually. I didn't feel the need to address this point. I agree with the statement if not the conclusion implied. The second point was that more time preparing means more choices. My response was that communication and collaboration increase your ability to create elements that are meaningful for your players. The other part of my response was that by addressing just what the players find meaningful, your total meaningful choices can be maintained the same. Who cares about the choices that the players never make? If you arrive at the same number of meaningful choices, but you spend much less time getting there, your game prep is more efficient. This is basically what the OP stated. This is also a good thing to teach, if the desire is to expand the player base.

To address the replay value thing Ariosto, there is no reason that you cannot recycle the elements of the world that evolve from a story driven game. An established world is an established world, no matter how you get there. If you don't mind the limitations on a campaign, then starting with a story driven game because it is easier, then allowing the world to evolve into a persistent world would be the most efficient way to create the world that you will use several years from now. No need to start with the whole world mapped. That is the inside out worldbuilding method that would evolve out of the setting construction method.