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

[Hussar]

Well again I can only reference the 3.5 books, but by my quote above it clearly lays out the fact that a campaign is made of adventures and the "world" is where these adventures take place... of course since supposedly in chapter 3 you read over 60 pages on adventures... they don't need to go over that again so they address the other aspect of it... worldbuilding. I'm sorry you've chosen to try and make a distinction between "setting" vs. "worldbuilding" (which I find you still haven't specified exactly what it entails) when the DMG doesn't ascribe to your definitions, yet addresses exactly what you are arguing for.

I have defined World Building a number of times in this thread. I know my definition differs from the one in the DMG. THAT'S THE POINT. I define world building thusly:

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.

That's what I'm objecting to. Like I said, your background, to me, from the little bit I can see, fufills my definition of Setting Building. You have a couple of locations that presumably will feature in your campaign, probably feature regularly in the campaign as well. The racial writeups are necessary for Character Creation and thus are serving the campaign as well.

OTOH, you have not detailed, in other than very, very broad strokes, the history of your city. Who founded your city? Who were the first ten leaders of your city? Who are the royal family (if your city has one) of your city?

In my view, who cares? Unless your characters have any particular reason for interacting with the royal family (and looking at your campaign notes, I'm thinking that they don't), why bother detailing it?

But, from a bottom up or top down approach, both advocate detailing that royal family. They are fixtures of this setting. Heck, the DMG actually goes into fairly lengthy detail that you should detail the power structures of your setting.

The DMG, in any version, uses World Building and Campaign Building synonymously. It actually states so in the opening of the Campaign buildling chapter that the two are synonymous. I disagree. I think they are not synonymous. However, there are numerous examples out there that do make them sound that way. The Dungeoncraft articles from Dungeon spend a few years detailing how to build a world.

Yet, in the same magazine, you rarely (although not never) see articles on how to build a campaign divorced from what I call World Building. You certainly don't have any multi-year monthly series on how to build your campaign without going into all the extra work of world building.

Compare the opening of the old Dungeoncraft articles from print Dungeon:

Last month, we resolved some basic logistical and administrative issues-how many players is best, what rulebooks to use, and so forth. With that out of the way, it's time to start creating the campaign environment.

Before we start play, before we even attempt to design our first adventure, we should flesh out the campaign world. What's our fantasy world like? What sort of adventures await our brave players?

((Now, to be fair, his first rule is "Never create more than you have to" but, then the entire series is on how to bottom up create a world))

If I were to drop the PCs down right on one of those borders where two nations are simmering at the edge of all-out war, there'd be room for adventure there. That could be a pretty cool campaign. Maybe a city is right on the border. Maybe its people don't really consider themselves members of either nation, and they resent being fought over, but there are also plenty of immigrants from both nations living within its walls. That could be a lot of fun.

But that only works because I've switched from the big map to a very small spot on it. Once I start running that campaign, the forest with the elves and the swamp with the monsters don't matter, at least not until the campaign grows and expands to include them. In the short term, I'm better off putting time into fleshing out the city on the border and the adventure possibilities there, rather than putting another thought into what lies half a continent away.

Now, James Wyatt also goes with the bottom up start. Again, the idea is developing the setting first and then working with the players.

It's more or less the same song and dance.

What I don't see is advice saying, "Ok, don't bother working out all this stuff first. The first thing you need to do is sit down with your players. Work out a number of details - theme, rough plot ideas, feel, tone, mood - with your players FIRST. Then, go back, and quite possibly with their help, start working on creating a campaign together."

Most of the advice places the majority of the workload squarely on the DM.

Heck, Imaro, you've done it yourself. Did you ask your players if that was something they were interested in before you started? Did you ask your players what kind of characters (not class/race, but rough archetypes) they wanted to play before you started? Did you ask any questions about theme, or mood before you started?

 

[Lanefan]

As a question Lanefan, do you think this would be good advice to give to DM's? To tell them that they should do this much work with the expectation that their campaigns will last for so long?

Yes, yes, yes!

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.

But if a DM goes into a campaign thinking "I'm prepared to run this as long as there's people willing to play it", does enough pre-design to support enough stories to keep things interesting, and sets that sort of open-ended expectation going in, then assuming the DM's any good (or the players are really tolerant!) it could and should last for many years. It should be noted that I'm referring to the campaign here; as time goes on, player turnover is pretty much a given.

True, but, I'd be pretty surprised to learn that any group out there has actually done what you are suggesting. To walk into the session and abandon all ongoing campaign elements to do something that is a complete surprise to the DM? If this has ever happened, I'm going to file it under statistical anomoly and ignore it for this conversation. I really, really doubt that any DM has to deal with this on a regular basis.

I've both done it as a player, and had it done to me as DM. To me, it's just another part of the game....

Lan-"where the map is blank, I'll go"-efan

 

[Fallen Seraph]

While certainly not a bad choice, I think the "multi-year, multi-campaign setting" is definitely a choice among many, be it for beginners or experienced DMs. I can certainly see the benefits of it.

But I can also see it not being the primary choice if ones view of building the game is different, ie; like myself

For myself when constructing what little bit of setting design I do (I do the drag-and-drop method as mentioned previous times) I design it specifically, very specifically for that campaign. All the devised campaign elements from themes, atmosphere, colour themes, types of races, NPCs, any manner of supernatual events, etc. either tie directly into the campaign and story or give it some benefit.

As such, when times comes to run another campaign, if it goes off in another direction. Say from... Gritty, Noir Thriller to High-Magic Adventure using another campaign setting is more advisable.

Now true, in some manner I somewhat entrap myself by focusing on that particular campaign when devising the setting. But since I always have something else churning in the back of my mind, and with a lighter work load when coming up with a setting it doesn't become a issue.

Different methods and all, neither better, neither worse.

 

[Ariosto]

How hard is it really to accept the received definition of a gazelle (complete perhaps with the "lustrous eyes" I found in one dictionary as something there to be seen if one so looks) -- and also to prefer the awesomeness of the gamboling TOFUDABEAST?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

What about creating background where you've no idea whether it'll ever encounter the story or not - it is created for one of several possible stories that may crop up depending on in-game character decisions?

What I don't see is advice saying, "Ok, don't bother working out all this stuff first. The first thing you need to do is sit down with your players. Work out a number of details - theme, rough plot ideas, feel, tone, mood - with your players FIRST. Then, go back, and quite possibly with their help, start working on creating a campaign together."

It's good that you don't see it, because that's awful advice!

Set up the general world and at least one adventure first, then invite players to play in it. For my current campaign, my sum-up went something like "It's D+D. It'll use the same homebrew rule-set we've been using all along, with a few tweaks. The setting to start with will be classical-Greek based, but think Xena more than Homer. Most other historical cultures exist somewhere in the world. Gnomes and Hobbits will be much less common than you're used to. You in?"

Note that I say *nothing* about plot! They can figure that out - or not - as they go along; as well as how the cultures inter-relate, where they are, and so forth.

And it'd be even more pointless following your advice (above) with new players, who don't even know what a "campaign" is. That said, if all your players are new to the game you probably *don't* need to design very much at all going in; you can pretty much wing it all and they'll not know the difference at least for long enough that you can sort it all out.

Lanefan

 

[rounser]

That's it, keep attacking my arguments yet never solidifying, clarifying or explaining yur own stance in a clear and concise way so that real debate can take place.

Ha, you're one to talk when it comes to that. I've posed questions but you've just ignored them. But hypocrisy is overcriticised. I'll answer my questions before commenting on your answers if you agree to answer them also, before commenting on mine. Then maybe we can have a constructive discussion, rather than you talking apples and I oranges, by the term "worldbuilding." Deal?

I'll even hook up a proper keyboard, rather than this thumb one which has been making my posts brief (or "never solidifying" as you put it).

 

[Rel]

Ha, you're one to talk when it comes to that. I've posed questions but you've just ignored them. But hypocrisy is overcriticised. I'll answer my questions before commenting on your answers if you agree to answer them also, before commenting on mine. Then maybe we can have a constructive discussion, rather than you talking apples and I oranges, by the term "worldbuilding." Deal?

No deal! Instead you'll be banned from this thread and also from the boards for three days.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, yes, yes!

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.

Well, considering the WOTC market research showed the average campaign lasts about 12 months, presuming that yours will buck the trend, particularly out of the gate is perhaps not the best way to go. Again, sure, if you know that your group and game will be ongoing that long, fine, but, I think for most people, they are lucky to get a campaign that lasts for more than 6 months.

But if a DM goes into a campaign thinking "I'm prepared to run this as long as there's people willing to play it", does enough pre-design to support enough stories to keep things interesting, and sets that sort of open-ended expectation going in, then assuming the DM's any good (or the players are really tolerant!) it could and should last for many years. It should be noted that I'm referring to the campaign here; as time goes on, player turnover is pretty much a given.

So, you advocate the DM keeping himself locked into one setting, regardless of the players? That it is a better idea to build the campaign divorced from the players?

This is certainly how the standard advice goes. "If you build it they will come" sort of approach that is advocated in most places.

Hey, I realize this approach I'm advocating isn't for everyone. I know that. I accept that. You're experiences are completely alien to me to be honest. The idea of playing, let alone DMing in the same world for that long does not interest me in the least. It works for you, but, it is certainly not the only way to game.

I've both done it as a player, and had it done to me as DM. To me, it's just another part of the game....

Lan-"where the map is blank, I'll go"-efan

Again, I'll stand by the comment that this is a statistical anomaly and does not figure into many campaigns. Yes, I'm sure you have done it and I'm sure that ten other people might have too. But, I'm also 100% convinced that the vast, overwhelming majority of players don't do this. I notice while you mention that you have done it, you don't mention it being done any other time during your campaigns.

So, you've run multi-year campaigns, spanning hundreds of hours of gametime. How many times can you recall any of your players abandoning whatever they are doing at the time in favor of doing something that you are 100% not expecting?

What about creating background where you've no idea whether it'll ever encounter the story or not - it is created for one of several possible stories that may crop up depending on in-game character decisions?

Before I answer this, I would ask for one clarification: How likely is it that this background will come up? If the background might come up if there is a blue moon on the third Thursday of March, then, I would say not to bother. If it is likely to come up, then I would point back to my definition of world building vs setting building. If it's likely going to come up, then it's setting building.

Is that vague? Sure. And each DM will have to find a point where they are comfortable with possibilities. But, since there is the definite intention that this material will come up, then I would probably approve. My beef is not, and never has been with that.

My beef is with creating background material that is almost certain to not see play.

It's good that you don't see it, because that's awful advice!

Set up the general world and at least one adventure first, then invite players to play in it. For my current campaign, my sum-up went something like "It's D+D. It'll use the same homebrew rule-set we've been using all along, with a few tweaks. The setting to start with will be classical-Greek based, but think Xena more than Homer. Most other historical cultures exist somewhere in the world. Gnomes and Hobbits will be much less common than you're used to. You in?"

Note that I say *nothing* about plot! They can figure that out - or not - as they go along; as well as how the cultures inter-relate, where they are, and so forth.

And that works for you. Great. This is not the style of campaign I'm talking about. I'm talking about a campaign that actually has themes, an overarching storyline, feel, mood, that sort of thing and that these things are developed WITH the players, not independent of them.

Your campaign sounds like a fairly standard campaign that follows the advice that has been trotted out for years. That's fine. It works. I'm simply offering an alternative.

And it'd be even more pointless following your advice (above) with new players, who don't even know what a "campaign" is. That said, if all your players are new to the game you probably *don't* need to design very much at all going in; you can pretty much wing it all and they'll not know the difference at least for long enough that you can sort it all out.

Lanefan

Assuming that the new players aren't 8 years old, I'm pretty sure that most of them have a general idea of what a campaign is. The days when RPG concepts were foreign to the general public have disappeared long ago. Let's face it, it's a pretty rare person who comes to RPG's without any knowledge of CRPG's or any prior experience of what I'm talking about.

Heck a new player would actually, IMO, be better served doing this. It would get new players actively engaged in the campaign - the campaign centers around them, instead of teaching new players that they should passively wait while the DM wheels up the plot wagon and begins spoon feeding them the campaign.

Instead of the players being passive observers, they are actively engaged from the initial point of campaign creation.

 

[Hussar]

How hard is it really to accept the received definition of a gazelle (complete perhaps with the "lustrous eyes" I found in one dictionary as something there to be seen if one so looks) -- and also to prefer the awesomeness of the gamboling TOFUDABEAST?

Oh come on. You're honestly going to say that I have no point here? That the definition of world building is such a concrete concept that there is no doubt?

I'd point to wikipedia for a moment. It does actually 100% agree with my definition - the creation of a complete world is the goal of world building by definition.

I would also point the fact, AGAIN, that you can have a compete story without any or at least very little world building.

Honestly, I'd think on of the biggest mental hurdles here is that everyone likens campaign creation to novel writing. If you spread out into other forms, suddenly world building becomes much less prevalent. Short stories, for example, feature little world building for the simple fact that you don't have enough space to do it (although world building can certainly accrete through episodic short stories). Stage theater also features little in the way of world building.

Novels feature world building because there is space to do so. No one minds if you spend five pages detailing the day to day life of farmboys if your novel is 500 pages long. Try doing the same thing in a 20 page short story and see how far you get. My point is that perhaps instead of locking ourselves into the novel form, looking out to other forms might (note the conditional there) work as well.

 

[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.

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).

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.