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

[Mercurius]

Forked from: An Epiphany -- My new Fave thing about 4E

Originally Posted by Hussar

Stormtalon - you mean... you are creating a campaign without spending hours and hours and hours on setting wankery first? And NO ONE here is yelling at you for it. Wow, times really have changed. I thought the setting nazis around here insisted that THOU SHALT WORLD BUILD, before creating any campaign.

Must wait for it.

But, kudos to you. This is EXACTLY how a DM should be creating campaigns IMNSHO.

Hmm. First you use pejorative terms like "setting wankery" and "setting nazis" and decry such folks for saying "Thou Shalt"...then, in the last sentence, you turn around and effectively say "Thou Shalt create campaigns after My Own Image." Isn't that a bit contradictory, even hypocritical?

Look, I think there is something to what you are saying but would point out that there are many different ways to create a successful (that is, enjoyable) campaign experience. But it is way too trite to say that no world-building and backstory is required.

In many ways running a campaign is similar to writing a novel. In one sense you only need to know what the readers/players know; in another, there is the potential for things to look flat if the players/readers get a glimpse that the old western town is actually a set piece (two-dimensional) and behind it is the bald-and-chubby old Wizard of Oz randomly generating reality via use of the Ultimate Toolbox (not a dig on this book...I just bought it and like it). I think we can safely say--at the least--that world building doesn't hurt and can only help with bringing dimensionality.

Originally Posted by Hussar

Really? Every time I've stated pretty much exactly that, that you should focus on your campaign and not building your world, I've been told in no uncertain terms, on these forums, repeatedly, that I am absolutely wrong.

That without world building, your campaign will automatically be flat, nothing but meaningless dungeon crawls and completely lacking in any sort of depth or consistency.

THAT'S the bizarro internet I've been reading.

OK, what I hear is that you, perhaps with good reason, are pissed with the so-called "setting nazis." But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater; that is, let's not throw out the question of whether world-building is needed for a good campaign, or rather to what degree it is needed, with the Thou Shalts and absolute statements of This Is How Gaming Should Be Done, which no one likes.

I would amend your above sentence to say:

"...without adequate world building, your campaign has the potential to be flat, with relatively meaningless dungeon crawls and lacking to some degree in depth or consistency."

Alright, it kind of made the statement meaningless, but you get the point (I hope)! So let's discuss these questions:

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.

There is a lot of room for fruitful discussion here, if we throw the "bathwater" out of Thou Shalts and pejorative accusations, whatever our viewpoint on the matter.

[Drkfathr1]

I've done it both ways, detailing a world before-hand, and doing it on the fly.

Either way works for me, but I guess it depends on what your overall goal is. I would think that if you had some pretty grand storylines in mind, with definate "adventure path" style games, you'd probably want to do a little world building before hand, just to have some basics ready for later on.

If you just running a sandbox style game, its probably easier not to detail very much at all, and just go with the flow.

I prefer to world build, but games I've run without much world building have still given me plenty of inspiration, and its exciting sometimes to see what the players come up with to add to the setting for themselves. It also gives you lots of freedom without worrying about how to squeeze stuff in that you didn't plan on.

[jdrakeh]

I think it all comes down to what game you're playing and what you (as an individual) want out of it, really.

Look at the original Greyhawk folio — it's arguably one of the most popular D&D settings ever but it's relatively light on "world building" (it weighs in at just 33 pages of written content and some maps). For many D&D players, this level of bare bones detail is sufficient.

Now look at the AD&D 2e incarnation of Forgotten Realms — it was argubaly the most popular D&D setting ever and was supported by multiple novel lines, video games, hundreds of sourcebooks, dozens of magazine articles, etc. Some D&D players won't settle for anything less.

[Storminator]

I was going to fork this thread as well.

Instead I'm going to step on yours.

I've been thinking of world/campaign/game building recently. I've decided to take even one step further back, to the metagame level. I've started with the principles of my next game - what are my goals?

Here's where I am so far:

Principles of the game:

1.	“Mythological” world rules, not scientific
2.	Share world building
3.	World changing PCs
4.	Embrace elements of 4e – 
     a.	World Axis cosmology
     b.	Tiers of play
     c.	Rituals & alchemy
     d.	Skill challenges
     e.	Use all core
5.	Play what you want


Principles to game elements
1.	Mythological rules
     a.	The world is flat
     b.	Men become gods
     c.	Gods can be slain
     d.	You can sail off the edge of the world to reach the stars
     e.	If you climb deep into the volcano, you reach the Sea of Fire… which is also the sun
     f.	It’s hard to tell where the forest ends and the Feywild begins
     g.	The past, the present and the future are written in the stars… learn to read them
2.	Share world building
     a.	The Exiles construct allows a player to make a full culture, as extensive or limited as desired, and slot it into the world
     b.	The Empire can have any secret or open societies, and they can be introduced at any time
     c.	The Natives haven’t been fully explored, so any native culture can come from over the horizon
     d.	The planes are permeable – outsiders anyone?
     e.	Anything can come from the sea
3.	World changing PCs
    a.	Heroic tier
         i.	Political/civilization level changes
         ii.	Save/expand/betray your Exile community
         iii.	Thwart/aid the Empire
         iv.	Push back the darkness
     b.	Paragon tier
         i.	Extraplanar
         ii.	Rewrite the world powers
         iii.	Strengthen/weaken the gods?
     c.	Epic tier
         i.	Remake the world
         ii.	Remake the cosmology
              1.	Gods?
              2.	Primordials?
              3.	Far Realms?
              4.	Tharzidun?
     d.	Aftermath?
          i.	Next campaign set amid the PC’s changes?

As you can see I haven't finished...

But my goal is to make sure that anything I put in the game is consistent with the principles I start with. So any house rules, or setting elements, or treasures found, etc, are there because I can trace back to a principle I want to expand on.

PS

[Hussar]

Aww, but, if I can't get up on my soapbox, I must be doing something wrong.

Ok, fair enough, I'm overstating my case. It was a bit of a knee jerk comment based on Storm Talon's original thread about how he was building a campaign from the ground up, not based on any particular setting, but, instead, basing it almost entirely on plot.

This is a very different approach than what has traditionally been advocated by a great number of people in the hobby. Heck, even the various Dungeon Master Guides include fairly lengthy sections on world building. The typical advice is either top down or bottom up, but, in the end it's generally, "build the setting first, then figure out what kind of adventures go on in that setting."

I really do disagree with that approach. I think a far better approach, and much better advice to new DM's out there, is "start with a story. Think about what events would be important to that story. Then, start building from there." Even if the story is just, "Go out and see what's over that next hill", it's better to start from the story angle than to design the other side of the hill and then work backwards.

Fair enough for taking me to task on my rhetoric. I'll agree with that. Bit too strongly worded is right. But, in the end, I do think my basic point is solid. Many gamers, and also those dispensing gaming advice, have placed a very strong emphasis on setting over plot. I mean, those old DungeonCraft articles from Dungeon are great. They really are a fantastic series on how to build a setting. However, IMO, they are not a great way to build a campaign

[Cadfan]

I'm basically with Hussar. Nine times out of ten, if a DM is using terms like "world building," what he really means is "I've put in all kinds of details that I want you to know, that I may or may not actually tell you, that you'll probably forget anyways, and that won't be relevant to anything in the actual game, until the moment I pull a gotcha and get angry that you didn't remember some detail about the gnomish god of such and such that I made absolutely crucial to the plotline of a particular session."

I'm all for DM preparation and the creation of a coherent gameworld, I think these things are important only to the extent that they make the game better. That usually means that details are held down to a manageable amount that can be clearly communicated to the players and which have actual, repeated relevance during sessions. There are some tricks to accomplishing that, by the way- get the gameplay details worked into character backstories. With luck, the players will do some of the work of communicating and spreading the information, and making it relevant in gameplay, for you.

The other trick is to just start chopping out material with an axe. My present campaign has only two kingdoms. The PCs are from both. There was a war about 50 years ago between the two kingdoms, and the younger generation is at peace about it, but the older one is not. There are still some old nationalists in both kingdoms who resent the other side, and the losing side still has some colonies that do not acknowledge the treaty that was signed.

That's about all the worldbuilding I did. Fortunately, it all tends to be relevant in game, the players can remember it, and they can put their knowledge to use. I consider this a success in a way that I would not consider extra detail my players will ignore.

[Fenes]

Originally Posted by Cadfan

Nine times out of ten, if a DM is using terms like "world building," what he really means is "I've put in all kinds of details that I want you to know, that I may or may not actually tell you, that you'll probably forget anyways, and that won't be relevant to anything in the actual game, until the moment I pull a gotcha and get angry that you didn't remember some detail about the gnomish god of such and such that I made absolutely crucial to the plotline of a particular session."

That's easily solved by a single knowledge religion check. "Your character knows that the gnome god has a weakness for the halfing goddess of luck". GMs who pull a "gotcha" are not tied to world building, they are a problem (for those who don't like that playstyle) of their own.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Fenes

That's easily solved by a single knowledge religion check. "Your character knows that the gnome god has a weakness for the halfing goddess of luck". GMs who pull a "gotcha" are not tied to world building, they are a problem (for those who don't like that playstyle) of their own.

Yes and no.

Sure, you can make the roll, but, unless you had some reason to do so in the first place, you aren't likely going to ask. And, this presumes, of course, that the person who wants to know, also has access to the relevant skills. And, not only has the relevant skills, but also manages to make a successful check.

I'm a HUGE believer in building setting. I am a strong non-believer in world building. I think that world building tends to be an DM only exercise that is fine in its place, but should not be the first or even second or third consideration when building a campaign. I put world building in the same category as model train building and painting minis - it's pretty, it's impressive, but, at the end of the day, it's a pretty solo activity.

[Greg K]

It's fine to do it both ways. However, for a fantasy rpg, it is the setting (including the elements) and how it is represented mechanically that will interest me in participating. Therefore, don't expect me to play if the dm has not thought about the setting, its elements (deities, cultures, races, nations, magic, important NPCs and organizations) and the mechanics used to represent them (classes, variant rules/house rules, etc.).

Oh, and don't expect me to play in a kitchen sink/anything goes game (Personally, I am not a fan).

What I think is helpful, beyond a genre (e.g, arabian adventures, asian adventures, post apocalyptic, gothic horror, tolkienesque) , are things that create the sense of a coherent setting and inform players how things will differ from RAW.

1. Races
This tells the player the available choices for PCs found in the world.

2. Culture
For the player, the culture informs them of what the race ( or a specific group of the race) is like in the setting including social organization (e.g, band, tribal, monarchy) , subsistance (e.g, hunter/gather, pastoral, farming), religious practices, views on magic, social values, views on ownership of personal property, dress, body art/ornamentation, etc. . It gives them a starting place to base their character's backgrounds and personality including how they as an individual might differ from the norm (nothing like being an outcast as a reason to adventure).

For the DM, the culture can help define which classes are found among a given race i(e.g., limiting clerics, druids, and shaman's to specific cultures) or how to alter powers or skills for a given class. It also indicates the type of enviroments that will be needed when determing the geography


A brief outline or a page or less of per culture should suffice.


3. Geography
Where are the nations located relative to one another? What are the major cities? Where are the areas that unique monsters and NPCs, other creatures (e.g, marauding humanoids) , and places to explore going to be found?

4. Deities
Who are they? How do they differ from the default gods? What does the player of a divine class need to know about expected behavior? Is a priest for a given deity represented by a particular class or build? Do the powers need to be refluffed?

5. Magic and non martial power sources
What sources exsit in the setting and how do they work?

For example, how does arcane magic work? Is there a deity of arcane magic or is arcane magic drawn from either the enviroment or within oneself? Or is all arcane mage the result of a pact? How is this represented by the inclusion or exclusion of existing classes?


6. Organizations
What are the prominent organizations? Churches, Knightly Orders, Magical Academies, etc. These are things that the PC might belong and from whom they received their training.

7. Important NPCs
Who are the rulers or other important individuals that the PCs might know (or at least heard of) based on racial, cultural or organizational ties? Players may want this information to form ties

Also, who are the major players that they may encounter?

You don't have to stat these figures, but it is helpful to have some notes.

8. A few bits of history or other knowledge for the individual PCs based on race, culture, or organizational ties.
You don't need to have a long drawn up history just some notes. Giving the player via his character a few bits of starting knowledge regarding recent events, local monsters, adventuring sites, or magic items may give the character some possible hooks for long term or short term goals should the player to decide to incorporate them. It also gives them information about the setting that other characters may not have. When the information is based on race, culture, and/or organization, it rewards the player with something unique based upon their choices for the character.

[Stormtalon]

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.

Well, let's take the campaign I've sort of detailed in the original thread as a working example.

1) Geography

For what I've got in mind plotwise, I know I need a reasonably sized yet isolated kingdom surrounded on all sides by hostile wilderness. I also know that I'm going to need 3 areas where the kingdom is aggressively expanding -- and that they happen to be positioned such that they form an equilateral triangle with the capital city at the center (yes, this is important). I know there's a narrow mountain pass outside of the region the party is initally working in.

2) Ecology

I've already determined that I'm going to need at least 3 different (potentially) hostile humanoid races, with a heavy focus on goblins. I'm going to need giants -- probably Hill; I'm going to need at least one dragon and I'm going to need a metric ton of epic-tier aberrant beasties, plus elementals and at least one Primordial.

3) Society

At the basic level, Generic Monarchy #1 will suit the needs of the campaign just fine. The church of the Raven Queen (in her role as Arbiter of Fate) will play a very large role throughout the first two tiers -- visible in some places, behind the scenes in others. I need an order of knights and paladins devoutly loyal to both the king and the head of the order. The folks on the frontiers are hardy, utilitarian and practical -- and are willing to accept the possibility of odd alliances to better secure their futures. I'm going to need a vague prophecy that is easy to misinterpret in all the wrong ways.

There -- that's the world I've got to work with. Thing is, it is a direct result of the needs of the campaign. I don't need anything outside of it. Vague references of distant lands dropped in here and there will be sufficient (as long as they're consistent) to keep the players thinking this is part of a larger world.

Don't get me wrong -- I enjoy world-building, but I view it as an entirely separate endeavor from creating a campaign. It's not always necessary, and the campaign doesn't have to suffer if it's not done as the first step.

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by Mercurius

So let's discuss these questions:

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.

It is certainly possible to build as you go. Whether or not I'd recommend that depends largely on how much internal consistency the players desire, and how good you are at remembering disparate facts and either linking them up or attaching new facts to them on the fly.

For many years, I played in a (non-D&D) game in which there was *exactly zero* world building done before characters started playing. The GM made us aware of this, that he'd be adding details as he went, mostly during actual play. It worked out fine.

But, to be honest, his ability to remember all the details, and make up plausible new ones as he went was above and beyond what I've seen in most GMs.

And, I note that he never tried to run a mystery plot.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Mercurius

OK, what I hear is that you, perhaps with good reason, are pissed with the so-called "setting nazis."

Personally, I'd like to see the posts where Hussar "stated pretty much exactly that, that you should focus on your campaign and not building your world" and the "setting nazis" told him he couldn't create a campaign world "without spending hours and hours and hours on setting wankery first".

I don't think it is difficult to find the posts where, in response to Hussar's statements, others said (in effect) "without adequate world building, your campaign will lack to some degree in depth or consistency."

IOW, I don't think he is legitimately agrieved.

(I altered the quote because of the tautology; if your campaign is not to some degree lacking in depth or consistence, then you have done adequate world-building. I agree that the question of what is "adequate" is the interesting one, and varies based upon individual needs/tastes.)


RC

[Fallen Seraph]

I think it is a give-or-take, also I think it depends on the campaign style that you are running. I think a couple things need to be taken into consideration:

1) How plot-oriented is the game, and can you as a DM keep the narrative flow going and active between the Players and You. This is important not just in eliminating as much need for detailed world as well as worry about inconsitences and "realism". Essentially keep the minds active they won't have time to ponder such things.

2) Related to #1 is it more plot-oriented or sandbox. I think sandbox it be more advisable to have a more detailed world, since well to me it would seem harder to set up interesting occurrences, adventures, etc. without some support with such on-the-fly gameplay. While on the other side of the fence a more plot-oriented game can be hindered by sticking to stringently to a campaign world where certain elements of the plot may not run as well.

Those two points are very important to me when I set up my games. I personally while I like making up worlds, etc. just for fun chop them all up when it comes to running a game. I first and foremost set-up plots, NPCs, etc. and then simply add any world elements as need be, "I need such and such a thing, cool, there it is", etc.

I think building a plot without a world can give you more freedom in the plot, but you just won't have as much resources to support the plot on. Thus why I just leave any setting stuff to the side and simply add bite-size pieces as I need them, but if I don't they will never see the light of day. So I guess you can say the plot as it unfolds builds the world.

[Kask]

It all depends on what kind of game you are going to run. If my players just want to hack & slash through levels, then no. If we are going to run a campaign that spans many generations of characters through many levels, then I fully flesh it out in a similar fashion to the original Greyhawk setting.

[gizmo33]

Originally Posted by Hussar

This is a very different approach than what has traditionally been advocated by a great number of people in the hobby. Heck, even the various Dungeon Master Guides include fairly lengthy sections on world building.

I don't remember this. My recollection of past DMGs (especially 1st edition) was that the advice was to start with a village where the dungeon was located, and expand outward as needed. If I think back through other notes in the DMG, in no particular order, there was stuff on versimilitude with treasure ("it's not just a pile of coins" advice), preparing reactions for organized foes, reasons why PC rulers might have a hard time forcing serfdom on the locals (I remember something about a Conan-type fighter leading the rebellion) and so on. Every one of those elements were advice on how to build a reaction to a PC action, which AFAICT is not the world-building you're talking about.

The 3E DMG had notes on demographics, but they were very sketchy and seemed geared towards "what can a PC buy in this place". There were some notes on how much a bushel of wheat costs and stuff like that. But otherwise, I don't recognize your criticism of DMGs as having lots of world building information. Mainly because I can't recall any. And if I could I would be very curious about how they tackled the "medieval-historical vs. fantasy" choices and other such things. But I can't.

So are you sure it was in the DMGs?