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

[Beginning of the End]

but the distinction between pre-prep and improv in terms of output is almost nonexistent if you're doing your pre-prep right.

The other big distinction is that with improv, you don't need to come up with anything extra.

That sounds like the exact same distinction.

I advocate not detailing too much, so that you eliminate the rails. Everyone "railroads" to some degree if they prep but not improvise.

You're working from a false premise. Proper prep eliminates the rails. A railroad is, in fact, defined by a lack of prep.

None are likely to be unused, unless the PCs skip things or ingore the prep entirely. This is likely a breach of social contract.

This is another false premise. There are plenty of games in which the PCs are expected to skip things they don't find interesting.

(2) You need to design the city of Tharsis. (Where is it? What's it like? What can the PCs do there? Et cetera.)

Only minimally, and only with reference to what the PCs will need for this adventure. "Sinig city on the coast, not far from the derelict ship, white marble city in Greek arcitecture style, with a huge mountain behind it." The rest can be improvised.

In other words, you answer the questions: Where is it? What's it like? But you don't answer the question, "What can the PCs do there?" Even though you claim that all prep should be aimed at the PCs. Would you care to explain the obvious discrepancy in your position?

Sure, the parts that might be a battle site should have a map. Otherwise a short description and improv are sufficient.

No. You need the villains' stats if you want to have a fight. Nothing else is needed. Improvise at the table if the PCs decide to fight the navy.

What you're failing to acknowledge is that the GM isn't making the decision of "where will the PCs fight on this ship". Nor is he making the decision "will the PCs fight the navy?". The PCs are making those decisions (or, at the very least, contributing heavily to them).

You, OTOH, have a vision of the story that you want to tell. You claim that you're "open to other possibilities", but you also advocate the type of limited, narrow-minded prep that you admit causes "everyone" to "railroad to some degree".

The only way you know that (a) the PCs will board there derelict and fight the villain, but (b) not attempt to fight or evade the Tharsis navy is if you either railroad them or have an amazing gift of prescience.

And that's why you're running into problems in this thread: You're refusing to acknowledge that not everyone runs their games the way that you do.

By your own description, you not only design elements of the world, you also pre-determine their purpose. You don't just design a "derelict", you design a "derelict that the PCs are supposed to explore". You don't just design a "bad guy on the ship", you design a "bad guy on the ship that the PCs are supposed to fight". You don't just design a "Tharsis navy", you design a "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to".

But I don't GM like that. I design a "derelict" and then I let the PCs do whatever they want with it. Explore it? Sink it? Tow it? Repair it? Fight on the deck? Fight below decks? Fight while swinging from the tattered rigging? Whatever happens, happens.

Saying, "You should only design the parts of the ship that might be part of the battle site." is a nonsensical instruction for my style of gaming. Battle site? I don't even know if there's going to be a battle. I certainly don't know where on the ship that battle is going to take place.

You said that you felt "insulted" because I suggested that you just flat-out don't understand how other people play the game. But then you posted a message confirming that you don't, in fact, understand how other people play the game.

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.

But if you GM like I do, then the distinction is non-existent. Elements of the game world are like toys in a child's playroom. Your game features structured play time -- you have selected very specific toys that the children can play with and you even have some guidelines on how they're expected to play with them. There's nothing wrong with that. And, in that context, it's fair to say, "You shouldn't buy toys that the kids aren't going to play with."

But my game, OTOH, just features a playroom full of toys and the kids are allowed to play with whatever they want and however they want. In that context saying, "You shouldn't buy toys that the kids aren't going to play with." is meaningless. I buy a toy, I put it in the playroom, and they either play with it or they don't.

Within the confines of the analogy it still makes sense to prioritize my toy buying budget based on the types of toys I know the kids like to play with. And maybe there's some sort of rigorous methodology for organizing the toys, so I shouldn't buy toys that would be placed on high shelves the kids probably can't reach (i.e., designing a village on the far side of the game world that the PCs are unlikely to go to).

But the distinction between "toys they can play with" and "toys they can't play with"? Doesn't exist. They can play with all the toys and they can play with them however they like.

And the reason why D&D rulebooks and magazine articles are predominated by articles supporting my style of play and not your style of play is because that's been the default style of D&D play since 1974.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

You're working from a false premise. Proper prep eliminates the rails. A railroad is, in fact, defined by a lack of prep.

Prepping makes the rails. Whether you insist on placing an element in play or you do not place an element in play, by deciding what is "playable" you have created rails to some degree. It was the prep that did that. No matter what or how you prepared. You made the rails.

This is another false premise. There are plenty of games in which the PCs are expected to skip things they don't find interesting.

This is actually part of the point in how I advocate preparing for a game. Make sure that the elements in your game will be interesting to the players. This is accomlished with goal setting, theme setting, and character creation. The DM then addresses these things. If you do this, you virtually eliminate the possibility that you introduce things that the players are not interested in.

In other words, you answer the questions: Where is it? What's it like? But you don't answer the question, "What can the PCs do there?" Even though you claim that all prep should be aimed at the PCs. Would you care to explain the obvious discrepancy in your position?

The most important thing to ask yourself when introducing something into a campaign is "Why is it there?" When you do this, the where and what become important. Otherwise, it is just scenery. Don't stress too much about it.

What you're failing to acknowledge is that the GM isn't making the decision of "where will the PCs fight on this ship". Nor is he making the decision "will the PCs fight the navy?". The PCs are making those decisions (or, at the very least, contributing heavily to them).

This is taken care of if yuo have a decent idea of why you are introducing the element, and how you will introduce it, and who you are introducing it to. Goals, themes, and characters. If you don't know what yours are, you will have a hard time making predictions about what will happen.

You, OTOH, have a vision of the story that you want to tell. You claim that you're "open to other possibilities", but you also advocate the type of limited, narrow-minded prep that you admit causes "everyone" to "railroad to some degree".

Everyone reailroads. It is the process of defining your world/story that accomplishes this. The only way to avoid it is to ad hoc, improvise, and never say no. If you prep, you have defined the world, and you are eliminating possibilities. That is essentially a railroad.

My vision of the story comes from what the players have told me that they want to accomplish, and the characters that they have given me to accomplish it. I just create a crisis for them to act on. The story emerges from play. I don't "determine" it. I give them the opportunity to tell the story that they have told me that they want to. Plot =/= story. Plot as far as Iam concerned is what the bad guys plan, and ways that I have prepared to clue them into this. The rest is up to them. I do throw a lot of things at them to get them going, but it is up to them to determing what they make of it.

The only way you know that (a) the PCs will board there derelict and fight the villain, but (b) not attempt to fight or evade the Tharsis navy is if you either railroad them or have an amazing gift of prescience.

And that's why you're running into problems in this thread: You're refusing to acknowledge that not everyone runs their games the way that you do.

It is not prescience if you set it up right. It is not railroading if you allow them to choose. It is easy to reskin another drag-and-drop encounter to use for the unforseen event of the Navy attack.

By your own description, you not only design elements of the world, you also pre-determine their purpose. You don't just design a "derelict", you design a "derelict that the PCs are supposed to explore". You don't just design a "bad guy on the ship", you design a "bad guy on the ship that the PCs are supposed to fight". You don't just design a "Tharsis navy", you design a "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to".

The purpose that I design is in what they can get out of the element. They can interact in any way they want. I set the stage and they take it. The purpose that I have in mind is to allow them to choose how they interact with it, and to clue them into what is going on. An element that I introduce will give the players a choice and will give them information as to what the bag guys are doing. They still make meaningful choices. I never have results set in stone. I introduce opportunities, and then improvise. A "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to". Would never happen in my campaign. A "Tharsis navy that may open these doors for the PCs". The Pcs still have to opne the door.

But I don't GM like that. I design a "derelict" and then I let the PCs do whatever they want with it. Explore it? Sink it? Tow it? Repair it? Fight on the deck? Fight below decks? Fight while swinging from the tattered rigging? Whatever happens, happens.

This is exactly what I do. I just always do it in context of the goals of play, the themes of play, the characters, and the evolving plot. There would be no derelict if one of those things didn't demand it. I don't demand that they do a certain thing with it. I just only add it if it is directly related to the story that the PCs are creating. And I make sure that any player initiated elements in the story are not the only thing that will allow the story to advance.

Saying, "You should only design the parts of the ship that might be part of the battle site." is a nonsensical instruction for my style of gaming. Battle site? I don't even know if there's going to be a battle. I certainly don't know where on the ship that battle is going to take place.

If the monster attacks there, it will be a battle site, if only for as long as it takes the PCs to retreat. If it is all underwater except for the foredeck, then only the foredeck needs to exist. It seems that you are just objecting to object. You do have PCs get attacked, don't you?

You said that you felt "insulted" because I suggested that you just flat-out don't understand how other people play the game. But then you posted a message confirming that you don't, in fact, understand how other people play the game.

I fully understand your style of play. I played that way for years. You obviously do not understand mine.

But if you GM like I do, then the distinction is non-existent. Elements of the game world are like toys in a child's playroom. Your game features structured play time -- you have selected very specific toys that the children can play with and you even have some guidelines on how they're expected to play with them. There's nothing wrong with that. And, in that context, it's fair to say, "You shouldn't buy toys that the kids aren't going to play with."

But my game, OTOH, just features a playroom full of toys and the kids are allowed to play with whatever they want and however they want. In that context saying, "You shouldn't buy toys that the kids aren't going to play with." is meaningless. I buy a toy, I put it in the playroom, and they either play with it or they don't.

Within the confines of the analogy it still makes sense to prioritize my toy buying budget based on the types of toys I know the kids like to play with. And maybe there's some sort of rigorous methodology for organizing the toys, so I shouldn't buy toys that would be placed on high shelves the kids probably can't reach (i.e., designing a village on the far side of the game world that the PCs are unlikely to go to).

But the distinction between "toys they can play with" and "toys they can't play with"? Doesn't exist. They can play with all the toys and they can play with them however they like.

OK, I'll extend your analogy. If you just ask what the players want to play, then maybe you don't need to buy all those toys. If a kid doesn't want to play with dolls, don't buy dolls. If you need new toys every day or so, only buy the toys that you know that they will play with for the next few days. If it is July, you can ask them about whether they like baseball, and if they say yes and want to play baseball, don't worry about skis.

If you are forming a baseball team, then making sure that all your toy purchases are aimed at playing baseball is a good thing. A baseball coach could spend plenty of time buying hula hoops, and that might even be OK, the most efficient purchases will be baeball equipment, with the idea that they have a use for what you are doing.

And the reason why D&D rulebooks and magazine articles are predominated by articles supporting my style of play and not your style of play is because that's been the default style of D&D play since 1974.

This is very true. I think that there is a chicken and egg problem though. Is it the default style of play because it was placed in the rulebook, or was it placed in the rulebook because it is the default style of play? Does it really matter if there is another style that would work at least as well if not better? Should we restrict the advocacy of play styles to what we have mostly always done, or start talking about other ways, just to make sure that people are aware of them?

 

[Beginning of the End]

Prepping makes the rails. Whether you insist on placing an element in play or you do not place an element in play, by deciding what is "playable" you have created rails to some degree. It was the prep that did that. No matter what or how you prepared. You made the rails.

This is simply not true. Railroading is defined by a lack of choice -- which means a lack of prep. Whether you're doing that as pre-prep or improv-prep is irrelevant.

This is actually part of the point in how I advocate preparing for a game. Make sure that the elements in your game will be interesting to the players. This is accomlished with goal setting, theme setting, and character creation. The DM then addresses these things. If you do this, you virtually eliminate the possibility that you introduce things that the players are not interested in.

Unless, of course, the goal of the campaign is about meaningful choice. Meaningful choice, you'll note, means that there is inherently a road not taken.

What you're failing to acknowledge is that the GM isn't making the decision of "where will the PCs fight on this ship". Nor is he making the decision "will the PCs fight the navy?". The PCs are making those decisions (or, at the very least, contributing heavily to them).

This is taken care of if yuo have a decent idea of why you are introducing the element, and how you will introduce it, and who you are introducing it to.

The PCs making decisions is "taken are of" if the GM makes the decisions instead? Well, yes. That's exactly what I said. And it's why you keep getting accused of railroading, BTW.

Everyone reailroads.

(1) If that's actually true, then why did you consider it "insulting" when I said you railroaded?

(2) If your definition of "railroad" is actually so broad that "everybody does it", then your definition not only fails to match up with the actual common usage of the term (which makes it useless) it also renders it meaningless (which also makes it useless).

You don't just design a "Tharsis navy", you design a "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to".

The purpose that I design is in what they can get out of the element. They can interact in any way they want. I set the stage and they take it.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "you shouldn't design X because the PCs will never interact wth it" and then say "the PCs are free to interact with X any way they want".

This is very true. I think that there is a chicken and egg problem though. Is it the default style of play because it was placed in the rulebook, or was it placed in the rulebook because it is the default style of play?

We know the answer to that one: Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax were both running campaigns before there was a rulebook. Those campaigns used that style of play. That style of play went into the rulebook they wrote.

I fully understand your style of play. I played that way for years. You obviously do not understand mine.

I understand your style of play just fine. I just don't understand why you insist on claiming it as the One True Way. I also don't understand why your posts contradict themselves in a completely incoherent way.

 

[underthumb]

If anyone thought my prior post was hyperbole, let's take some key quotes from different individuals:

Prepping makes the rails. Whether you insist on placing an element in play or you do not place an element in play, by deciding what is "playable" you have created rails to some degree. It was the prep that did that. No matter what or how you prepared. You made the rails.

Preparation is basically railroading!

You don't just design a "derelict", you design a "derelict that the PCs are supposed to explore". You don't just design a "bad guy on the ship", you design a "bad guy on the ship that the PCs are supposed to fight". You don't just design a "Tharsis navy", you design a "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to".

But I don't GM like that. I design a "derelict" and then I let the PCs do whatever they want with it. Explore it? Sink it? Tow it? Repair it? Fight on the deck? Fight below decks? Fight while swinging from the tattered rigging? Whatever happens, happens.

Your campaign is hobbled by prior intention! Whereas I design things with no ostensible game purpose! This may seem impossible, but my perception of future player actions is always equipotential!

I submit that these quotes are astounding and continue to dilute the concept of railroading into nothingness. As a GM, you always have the curse of knowledge: you cannot not suspect what your players will do, and this will never fail to influence your design choices unless you're throwing darts at a wall of encounters.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Preparation is basically railroading!

.....But if we change the meaning of words, we say do all kinds of crazy things!

It shouldn't be difficult to realize that, if prep limits options by only allowing for what is prepped, not prepping limits options even further by only allowing what can be prepped on the fly.

If in any period X, you can come up with an average of Y options, if you spend X time, you can come up with an average of Y options. It is almost tautological that additional prep time leads to increased options.

This is just another reformation of the arguments refuted upthread, where a premise is floated on the basis of an empty set that is supposedly its antithesis. In this case, the empty set where prep work becomes railroading.


RC

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

If in any period X, you can come up with an average of Y options, if you spend X time, you can come up with an average of Y options. It is almost tautological that additional prep time leads to increased options.

Except that improv at the table is collaborative, and so is much more efficient than time spent on prep before the game. On top of that, you only have to come up with the stuff that the characters do. Ignoring this is why you are having a problem understanding.

 

[Beginning of the End]

It shouldn't be difficult to realize that, if prep limits options by only allowing for what is prepped, not prepping limits options even further by only allowing what can be prepped on the fly.

Except that improv at the table is collaborative, and so is much more efficient than time spent on prep before the game. On top of that, you only have to come up with the stuff that the characters do. Ignoring this is why you are having a problem understanding.

Raven Crowking had a very precise point which you ignored completely in order to post more of your non sequiturs. Would you care to try again?

 

[Ariosto]

Precocious Apprentice, it is simply not going to work: we are not going to accept a redefinition of "railroad" jargon derived from playing D&D, such that it could even apply to the choice of playing D&D! ("But it's not Toon! Railroader!")

 

[Ariosto]

Again, the kind and amount of preparation that's appropriate depends on what you want to do -- and where that intersects with what you can do.

In terms of time, energy and number of players, a full-fledged campaign of the scope of Blackmoor, Greyhawk or Tékumel may be impractical for many of us.

On the other hand, the extremely limited sort that depends on the assumption of The Party being a constant may likewise be impractical.

Having to go through the "redesign with players" process often would I think pretty obviously be a drag. At the extreme, it would mean a session of such prep -- plus however much more prep the GM must do -- for just one session of play.

Here's another "chicken and egg" for you: Did TSR and WotC simply reflect the growing preponderance of the fixed 4-6 player team with the same characters always on the same mission and tuning in at the same Bat-time on the same Bat-day each week ... or did players come to take that for granted because it's what the corporation promoted?

We can ask the same about the notion that D&D should be about following a DM-provided story line instead of exploring a DM-provided world.

In a broad range of circumstances between extremes, the replay value of "world building" elements is very telling. It cuts down need for further preparation eventually (and that's not after very long, in my experience) to the point that one can run engaging sessions "on the fly."

If one has run weekly sessions for a couple of years, the world is likely to be so "lived in" that fleshing out part of it is as easy as picturing part of the real world.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

The thing is, there are three arguments going on in this thread.

1) All prep is good vs not all prep is good.
2) Having a reason for placing an encounter/element in your campaign is good vs. having a reason in mind is railroading.
3) Planning inherently creates better games than improv vs. improv can get to the same place as planning.

They often get confused within this thread.

Railroading- Limiting meaningful choice or the players. Sometimes with the contentious additions of "with or without conscious DM action/intervention" and/or "with or without player objection."

I am not trying to redefine railroad. It has been shown by many threads that have discussed railroading that there is no real consensual definition of railroading. The points I have made are that there are characteristics of railroading in every campaign. It is impossible not to. When the DM makes a choice, the players are denied the opportunity to make that choice. Defining the world is the DM imposing a shape to the campaign. This is fundamentally no different than defining the plot. It is just defining a different element of the campaign. It is just focusing on developing the story and not developing the world. Setting construction can avoid the railroad by allowing significant player choice within the plot. Not all possible choices are meaningful. By asking about what types of choices are significant for the players, the group, the campaign, and the characters, the story based game can address those choices that are meaningful without having to resort to the shotgun approach needed by worldbuilders. Both worldbuilding and setting construction rely on improv to some degree. Worldbuilding relies on improv for creating the action and plot. Setting construction relies on improv for the details of the world. The communication issue exists because you cannot see all of this.

The players retain as much meaningful choice in a story oriented game as a world oriented game, if they are both done right. Since the story oriented design is directly addressing the play/story, and world is directly addressing the world, the story design should be more efficient at giving the players meaningful choices. It is my experience that it is. I have used both methods, even successfully. These two activities exist on a spectrum. No one exclusively worldbuilds. No one exclusively constructs setting. The more toward setting you are, the greater your likelihood of maximizing out-of-game prep efficiency, since you directly address the meaningful choices.

I agree with RC that prep is good. I disagree with the implication that worldbuilding is best way to be prepared, or that it addresses which things are best prepared and which things are best improvised. I would contend that the most efficient way of establishing a world in your campaign is to do it at the table. Prep time for a game is best spent addressing meaningful choice, not the specific details of any element. Worldbuilding is successful if enough time is spent preparing to account for enough world elements that the players find at least one meaningful, and then be flexible in play. Setting construction is successful if the communication is good enough to determine what subset of all possible choices would be meaningful, and address those. Then be flexible in play.

If you need X elements that are meaningful to have a meaningful choice, and you need (X+n) choices in a campaign constructed with the worldbuilding method to ensure that there are X meaningful elements, while through communication, setting building, and improv you can produce just those X meaningful elements, then to use the verbiage above, it is almost tautological that it is more efficient to just ensure that you address the meaningful choices through setting construction and improv.

RC made two "precise" points. The first was that changing meanings of words can lead to changed logical outcomes. This is true. This is the point of this thread. This is not a bad thing. This is the creation of knowledge. Defining and redefining. That is how we progress intellectually. I didn't feel the need to address this point. I agree with the statement if not the conclusion implied. The second point was that more time preparing means more choices. My response was that communication and collaboration increase your ability to create elements that are meaningful for your players. The other part of my response was that by addressing just what the players find meaningful, your total meaningful choices can be maintained the same. Who cares about the choices that the players never make? If you arrive at the same number of meaningful choices, but you spend much less time getting there, your game prep is more efficient. This is basically what the OP stated. This is also a good thing to teach, if the desire is to expand the player base.

To address the replay value thing Ariosto, there is no reason that you cannot recycle the elements of the world that evolve from a story driven game. An established world is an established world, no matter how you get there. If you don't mind the limitations on a campaign, then starting with a story driven game because it is easier, then allowing the world to evolve into a persistent world would be the most efficient way to create the world that you will use several years from now. No need to start with the whole world mapped. That is the inside out worldbuilding method that would evolve out of the setting construction method.