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

[Umbran]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Mercurius]

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?

(SNIP CODE)

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.

Our thread, Storminator, ours

As for your outline, that's great stuff and very useful for me in the stage I'm at in my campaign (finished introductory 1-3 level adventure; beginning the "meat" of the campaign).

I'll have to read it over again to see if I have any questions.

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

You can get up, just don't expect to not get knocked off -- hey, do me the favor if I'm ever soapboxing!

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

Yes, very good points--and I agree with your basic point (and I'm very into worldbuilding--have been doing it since I was a wee-lad and even before I got into RPGs). Your differentiation between setting and campaign is key; in my comparison of a novel it relates to setting and story, respectively: You can create a great setting but still write a crappy novel if the story isn't good. But in both cases I think the creation of setting and campaign/story is symbiotic and come-into-being concurrently. One feeds the other and a starting point can be either setting or story. For example, you could start with an imagination of a world with three moons and different kinds of deities from each that hold sway over the world with the waxing and waning of their moon; or you could start with a story hook like a group of strangers wake up in forest glen, naked and amnesiac, with small jewels imbedded in their foreheads...either idea starts "building a nest" around it almost automatically. The key being that story is latent within setting, and setting is the "womb" for story.

More later...the family is wondering why I'm not in the living room with them

 

[TerraDave]

14 questions, with answers

1. Is much world buidling needed: No.

2. Is it fun for some DMs: yes.

3. Do broad elements of the world (aka setting) impact players perceptions, charecters, and things in play: yes.

4. In a good way: sometimes.

5. Do DMs overdo certain details and focus on the wrong ones: yes.

6. Do players get bored by certain details: yes.

7. But can't details help bring life to the setting and game: yes.

8. Do pictures help: greatly.

9. And handouts: yes, they can also help.

10. But can't setting development in general become a straight jacket: yes.

11. And lead to the DM feeling under apreciated: oh yes.

12. But can't a "world" also inspire the DM and players to do things not originally anticipated: yes.

13. And even take things in a (better) direction that fall outside the "story" first imagined by the DM: yes, a good world can do that.

14. Isn't the best strategy for the DM to do what he needs and wants to do from the "top" and the "bottom" and get on with it: its a strategy.

 

[Imaro]

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."

What if your players figure out what they want to do in the setting you have created and invent their own adventures though? I mean isn't this just as valid, or even moreso, a way to create satisfying play for both parties involved?

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.

I disagree here. IMO, a well crafted setting by the nature of being well-crafted allows PC's to create their own stories. It is simply a vibrant backdrop for the goals and aspirations the PC's have and will pursue.

Creating a "story" however assumes you know exactly what your PC's want to do... and if they don't want to do it, your setting (since it's built around that particular story) is less likely to be accommodating to their goals on the fly.

This style also assumes that the story you create will be a good (in relationship to what the PC's want) story, but what if it isn't? Since the setting is built around this particular story, instead of being an interesting setting ina nad of itself, the game's fun is based solely on whether your idea for a story and it's implementation are enjoyable to all at the table. Now if one has a setting constructed not to suit a story but as a setting, well then again the PC's can, if they desire, create a more suitable story, by exploring those aspects which intrigue or interest them.

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

I think your basic point is highly dependent on the players and DM. IME, my players use to need a "story" handed to them, but after some awkwardness and frank discussion I realized they were becoming use to this mode of play and I really wanted to see the type of "story" they would craft given free reign with their characters... and so I started designing a world, giving them about 2 pages on it... and from there they would design a character who fits in that world. The funny thing is I realized that some of my players had stories they wanted to explore from the minute they created a character and they could more easily direct the game to accomodate that in this manner, while those who didn't were more than happy to tag along, kill some things and play a part in the other's stories. YMMV of course.

 

[Ariosto]

In practical terms, it depends on the players. My latest group has decided that what they want to do is explore the local dungeon, so I focus on building that.

They've had encounters with people who told them of other places that I put on the map, and of ongoing events that I noted. Some of those had been fleshed out before the first session, in some cases using modules others wrote. Others are still just sketches.

A big "sandbox" laden with detail might not be very useful if players choose to stay in just one corner of it. Thinking that one must have a lot prepared can be a great excuse for procrastination in actually starting a campaign. In the event, the stimulation of play and keeping a step ahead of the players may be more inspiring than trying to fill in the blanks outside that context.

On the other hand, one might find the creative exercise so engaging in its own right that whether or not it ever comes into the game has no bearing on satisfaction; the creation itself is a private form of play. In that case, one might beware of the temptation to lay too much detail on the RPG players. They might not appreciate "homework assignments." They might feel that the adventures of their characters, driven by their choices, are too much in the shadow of the Game Master's creation.

All these factors vary so much from person to person that best advice by far is to know oneself and one's players.

 

[Greg K]

Imaro,
I tried to give you an XP for your post.