My players are still thoroughly engaged with my current campaign, because of the world building. They want to meet all the various cultures, and delve into the lore, to discover ancient secrets.
This is an instance of what I mean when I say that extensive world building by a GM means that a significant focus of play is having the GM tell the players stuff that the GM has made up, triggered by the actions that the players declare for their PCs. (So instead of the players looking through a GM-authored encyclopedia for the
duergar entry, to learn what the GM has made up about duergar the players declare as actions for their PCs that they enter certain tunnels, delve deep into the depths of the Underdark, etc.)
pemerton said:
happyhermit said:
pemerton said:
For instance, worldbuilding by a GM mean that a certain amount of table time is spent having the GM tell the players stuff about the world that the GM has built
without "worldbuilding" by a GM a certain amount of table time is spent having the GM tell the players stuff about the world.
Well, if the game is run just like a "worldbuilt" one but with the GM building the world on the fly, that will be true.
But if the game is run "no myth" or simllarly, then that won't be true.
No, it's always true (or I suppose one could qualify this with in 99.9% of all rpgs or some such, but no exceptions come to mind) that the GM will spend a certain amount of time describing the world to the PCs. If a game exists where the GM never describes the existence of an NPC, what they look like, etc. and never sets a scene, etc. then I haven't seen it. Now you can choose to say "That isn't describing the world", but that wouldn't be accurate. A GM running a "no myth" game, who then describes something in the game world, is describing the game world, no matter how one spins it.
I took your initial reply to me to be attempt to contradict in some fashion.
Obviously all RPGing involves the GM saying some stuff. My point about worldbuilding is that the GM spends a certain amount of time
relaying those details to the players. For instance, the players have their PCs wander through a town and the GM narrates stuff about it. The players ask who their PCs' friends or contacts are and the GM narrates stuff about it. The players have their PCs look for a market that might sell a desired item, and the GM narrates stuff about the town, about NPCs, etc - triggering the players to declare more actions ("OK, I ask the gate guard if there is a market in town") which result in the GM narrating more stuff.
If the above doesn't happen, then what was the point of the worldbuilding?
But the above sort of stuff doesn't happen in a game played closer to "no myth" style.
pemerton said:
I was referring to a particular sort of impossibility, namely, impossibility that results from the GM making a decision, secret from the players, that there is no secret door to be found; or the GM making a decision, independently of the players, that in this land there is an impassable mountain range to the east.
Sure, and I was pointing out that there are many ways a specific action will be made difficult to impossible in a ttrpg, not just "worldbuilding". I will also point out that "worldbuilding" doesn't
need to make anything difficult to impossible, so the whole point is even less salient.
I don't understand the point of your first sentence.
One consequence of worldbuilding is that, as a result, certain actions become impossible (eg finding a sage in this town that the GM as already decided doesn't have one). How is it relevant to that consequence of worldbuilding, and whether or not that consequence is desirable, that some other action declarations may be impossible for other reasons?
I also don't agree that worldbuilding needn't make anything difficult to impossible. The sort of thing I've just described is a natural consequence of worldbuilding. That's the whole point of it!
More generally, it can't be the case that
worldbuilding is good because it has certain consequenes but
worldbuilding can't be bad in virtue of certain consequences. Either worldbuilding does or doesn't have consequences for RPGing. And if it does - which I think it does - then there is a question as to whether those consequences are good or bad given the preferences of any particular RPGer.
This is why I think world building is very important. It makes the world more believable, consistent and coherent. It can add complexity and intricacies to the plot, that wouldn't be there if it was just improvised on the spot.
I don't agree with this.
There are methods for generating believable, consistent and coherent settings which don't involve GM worldbuilding. Likewise for complexity in storylines.
Those techniques do generally require giving up some other techniques, for instance this one:
ideally the world should be neutral. By that I mean that Mt. Torgrath will still loom over the city's east flank regardless of who plays in the game; Borten the Barkeep will still be a surly old grouch whether the PCs are all Thieves or all Wizards or all Elves or whatever; Queen Terriann will still be in her 6th year on the throne having succeeded King Gorund on his death due to old age, no matter what night of the week the sessions get played; and no matter who or what you or your PC are if you send said PC into the Docklands alleys without a few levels under its belt it's very likely going to lose its belt pouch...and possibly its life.
Why is this an ideal? Ideal for what? Whom?
If the goal is to have a
believable, consistent and coherent setting, with
complexity and intricacy in the storyline,
without having a significant focus of play being the GM telling the players stuff that s/he has made up, then the first step - as [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has also recently been posting in this thread - is to drop any notion of "neutrality" of the setting.
pemerton said:
Well, if the game is run just like a "worldbuilt" one but with the GM building the world on the fly, that will be true.
But if the game is run "no myth" or simllarly, then that won't be true.
Technically, it won't. But the same amount of time - or more - will be spent by the players asking for details and information about the game world so they can give their PCs some grounding.
Why? I mean, what is your evidence for this?
[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] has made the point already - if the game is being run "no myth" or similar, with a non-"neutral" world, then the grounding is established without the need for the sort of details you refer to.
The players can still establish the drama and hook the DM even in a DM-built world.
Also, assuming a reasonable DM the players always have a third option other than follow hooks or be spectators; and that's to have their PCs do something else within the gameworld, as in:
DM hook A: troglodytes are raiding a coastal village 20 miles south
DM hook B: lights have recently been seen in Mad Arcandia's old tower, long thought abandoned
DM hook C: rumours are growing within certain elements of the city's population that something's not right in the sewers - a monster has moved in?
DM hook D: orcs and goblins have started attacking caravans between here and Alphasia to the east
Players' response: See those mountains to the north on the map? We're going up there, get away from all this civilization and out into the true wildlands!
DM: runs the travel bit while quietly digging out Keep on the Borderlands...
And how is this an example of players driving dramatic arcs? All you have here is a GM about to set up another "neutral" hook!
