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

[LostSoul]

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]

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]

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]

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: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Campaign-Sourcebook-Catacomb-Supplement-Advanced/dp/088038817X]Amazon.com: Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide/Dungeon Master's Guide/Rules Supplement/ (Advanced Dungeons and Dragons): Paul Jaquays, William W. Conners: Books[/ame] .

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]

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.