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

[Ariosto]

I think there is indeed a consensus as to the meaning of "railroad" among members of the culture that coined the term in the first place.

 

[Hussar]

On the idea of real life has no plot.

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.

Do your NPC's have any goals? If yes, you have a plot in your game. End of story.

Unless your entire campaign is nothing but randomly generated, completely disconnected events, you have a plot. It might be a skeletal one, "Defend the town against the invaders" or it might be more meaty, but, it's still a plot. The second any actor in the campaign has any goals, whether PC or NPC, you have a plot.

Isn't it funny that the anti-badwrongfun police have jumped up and down on me repeatedly in this thread, but, here's Aristo saying that any story based play is bad and it passes without comment. Nice to know that everything's on an even footing.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

I think there is indeed a consensus as to the meaning of "railroad" among members of the culture that coined the term in the first place.

There was a thread around here a few days back about whether you could raiload a willing player. It was forked from this thread. There was no consensus. There were claims about railroading that were all over the place. This is exactly the same every time it comes up. Some people want to say that everything but a sandbox is a railroad, others saying that even a game with a very inflexible plot with no chance of alternatives is not a railroad if the players choose not to excercise any choice, or if they don't mind. There is no consensus about the definition of a railroad.

The thing is, basically any definition falls apart when you look at what people call a railroad, and what they say is not a railroad. It is all subjective. Meaningful choice is almost always part of the definition. That is pretty close to a consensus. Even that is problematic, because we have to get to what a meaningful choice is. Is a choice between two things actually meaningful if neither is appealing at all? What character or degree of choice is necessary to make it meaningful? How different must the options be in order for a meaningful choice to exist? These are subjective things. Everyone can agree that railroading exists. They can often agree when things have the characteristics of a railroad. Insisting on a definition of railroad is basically railroading the discussion.

Saying that a certain thing is railroading requires an explanation of how it lacks any meaningful choice. One could also show how something is more or less railroady than something else by comparing the difference in the degree and character of the choices that each offers, without requiring that either be a strict railroad. Neither worldbuilding nor setting construction inherently produces a railroad. Each has limitations on choice, and the limitations are basically of a similar degree, only covering different aspects of a campaign. Neither is a strict railroad, but neither is free of railroad characteristics. A significant amount of meaningful choice can be had in a campaign whether created as a sandbox or as a plot driven campaign.

There has been a falacy that has been thrown around this thread. The falacy is that a plot equals a railroad. It no more does than an established world, independent of the PCs is a railroad. If a place for the PCs to explore is not a railroad, then an event for the PCs to experience is not a railroad. One focuses on verbs, the other focuses on nouns.

I am challenging the falacy that the only way to avoid railroading is to provide a sandbox. Providing a baseball field does not determine the result of the game. This is not even a good analogy, because with a good plot, the game can exist anywhere. You don't need the sandbox, or the playground, or the park. It comes to get you wherever you are. What you do with it is the choice.

If we decide what game to play before we start play, or we let game play evolve during play, we have still decided on what to play, the only difference is that the players decided in one and the players decided through character proxies in the other. Neither has more choice than the other.

Your railroad straw man will not work. A plot is as equally unrailroady as a sandbox.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Do your NPC's have any goals? If yes, you have a plot in your game. End of story.

This has been said before, but apparently you didn't listen:

Plot = a plan that a person/character has
Plot = the sequence of events which make up a storyline

The two meanings of the term "plot" are not interchangeable. Trying to make them interchangeable is simply creating needless confusion for the sake of creating needless confusion.

So, given the clear context within this thread, let's focus on the second (and pertinent) definition of the term.

I would argue that the real world does have plots. Abraham Lincoln was elected President, he led through the Union through the Civil War, and then he was shot and killed in a theater by John Wilkes Booth. That's a plot.

Similarly, all the campaigns I have played in have plots: Character A did X, then they did Y, and then they did Z. That's a plot.

The difference, however, lies not in the story that can be told after the fact. It lies in the prep. If you're prepared a plot before you play the game, then that's very different than a game in which there is no plot before you play through the events. It is, in fact, possible to have a game in which there is no predetermined plot.

Isn't it funny that the anti-badwrongfun police have jumped up and down on me repeatedly in this thread, but, here's Aristo saying that any story based play is bad and it passes without comment. Nice to know that everything's on an even footing.

Ariosto was actually quite clear that he was speaking of only his own personal preference.

"...those of us who prefer "campaigns" in the traditional gaming sense see a "plot-line" as anathema."
""What's necessary" depends upon what one is trying to accomplish."

These quotes clearly indicate an acknowledgment of other styles of play.

You seem to be having a really difficult time reading posts in this thread for comprehension. Particularly Ariosto's. Why is that, do you think?

 

[Hussar]

This has been said before, but apparently you didn't listen:

Plot = a plan that a person/character has
Plot = the sequence of events which make up a storyline

The two meanings of the term "plot" are not interchangeable. Trying to make them interchangeable is simply creating needless confusion for the sake of creating needless confusion.

Umm, what? While yes, a plan that a person has is a plot, usually for some nefarious scheme, what does that meaning have to do with this thread? Good grief, we're talking about campaigns. Obviously the meaning of plot is number 2 in this context.

But, regardless of that, if you have PC's or NPC's with plans, you AUTOMATICALLY have a plot in your campaign (meaning number 2). The only way you could not have plot in your campaign would be to have a string of unrelated encounters with no connection between them, randomly generated.

Anything other than that is a plot. I get taken to task for clearly outlining why I'm redefining world building, but you guys get to pick and choose the definitions regardless of how nonsensical it becomes?

Wow.

So, given the clear context within this thread, let's focus on the second (and pertinent) definition of the term.

Please do.

I would argue that the real world does have plots. Abraham Lincoln was elected President, he led through the Union through the Civil War, and then he was shot and killed in a theater by John Wilkes Booth. That's a plot.

Similarly, all the campaigns I have played in have plots: Character A did X, then they did Y, and then they did Z. That's a plot.

The difference, however, lies not in the story that can be told after the fact. It lies in the prep. If you're prepared a plot before you play the game, then that's very different than a game in which there is no plot before you play through the events. It is, in fact, possible to have a game in which there is no predetermined plot.

No. It isn't. It really isn't. The second you have any connection between events, you have a plot. If there is any causal relationships in your game, you have a plot. You may not know the end of your plot (and I would certainly hope that you do not - therein lies railroading) but the plot is there nonetheless.

Lincoln is elected president - how does this effect the Civil war? is a plot.

Ariosto was actually quite clear that he was speaking of only his own personal preference.

"...those of us who prefer "campaigns" in the traditional gaming sense see a "plot-line" as anathema."
""What's necessary" depends upon what one is trying to accomplish."

These quotes clearly indicate an acknowledgment of other styles of play.

You seem to be having a really difficult time reading posts in this thread for comprehension. Particularly Ariosto's. Why is that, do you think?

Possibly because I am not busy trying to play silly bugger semantic games in order to score Internet points? Aristo has been pretty clear numerous times that he thinks that any game style other than his own is inferior. I mean, come on:

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.

How is this NOT a badwrongfun post? It's not even remotely historically accurate either considering how prevalent module play was in 1e. Heck, the vast majority of Greyhawk was expounded upon in modules. 2e saw the widespread use of modules? That's news to me.

But hey, don't let the fact that I have repeatedly stated that this is an alternative to standard campaign design deter you. I have not, outside of the initial post that triggered this thread, stated that this is the absolutest best way to do things. What I have stated is that I do think that it is better than the alternative.

You're free to disagree with that. That's fine. But to give Aristo a free pass on the badwrongfun end of things is just playing silly buggers.

 

[Ariosto]

People acquainted only with 4E might not understand what "hit dice" are, and people not acquainted with 4E might understand terms such as "leader" and "mob" in a different (plain-English) way -- but that does not mean the game jargon lacks well-understood referents.

I have created and run "railroad" scenarios, some of which are among my most memorable sessions of play. Some games from their inception assumed and were specifically designed for that style of play ... but not D&D.

The claims of tightly limited environment creation being a more efficient means all presuppose a particular end.

In my experience, it is not in the long run a labor-saving approach. Material designed only for one scene in a story leaves me starting from scratch with the next. If I design a dynamic environment from which all sorts of stories can emerge, then the Hussars of the world will ride me down for "world-building".

Consider a proper dungeon. I typically start by mapping and keying perhaps three or four small levels, but two could suffice. The thing is, that little bit of work can provide plenty of adventure for multiple sessions. In the meantime, I can expand it both vertically and horizontally.

A town is much the same, although the expansion there is not outward but inward -- toward development of the NPCs and their relationships.

Moving on to the wilderness, an analogy with war-games comes to mind. By the "setting only" ideology, the only hexes (or at least the only non-blank ones) should be those into which I expect moves in a preplanned campaign. Information players could use to plan other strategies is allegedly "not meaningful". That is utterly to fail to grasp what a strategic game is about!

D&D as originally conceived is a game of strategy. Stories emerge in play rather than being forced. The old wisdom is one of planting seeds that grow naturally, rather than building the forest one board-foot at a time.

That capability ought to be an asset to someone who wants a stronger element of plot but also wants to retain the game aspect! (Lacking the latter desire, he is perhaps better advised to become a novelist rather than a DM.)

I tend to run relatively "plotted" superhero games, which is rather in keeping with the generally reactive nature of heroes in that genre (quite different from the instigating protagonists of sword-and-sorcery tales).

That's relatively, though. I still find that my most valuable design effort is in fleshing out NPC individuals and organizations, and the precincts of the city. A given thread may play no direct role in the events of the next session, but the rich tapestry as a whole makes my game mastering much easier!

 

[Beginning of the End]

Umm, what? While yes, a plan that a person has is a plot, usually for some nefarious scheme, what does that meaning have to do with this thread?

Nothing. Which is why you bringing it up was worth commenting upon.

The difference, however, lies not in the story that can be told after the fact. It lies in the prep. If you're prepared a plot before you play the game, then that's very different than a game in which there is no plot before you play through the events. It is, in fact, possible to have a game in which there is no predetermined plot.

No. It isn't. It really isn't. The second you have any connection between events, you have a plot.

I wish you'd stop posting complete non sequiturs. I find them very difficult to respond to. Let's try this:

What part of the word "predetermined" did you not comprehend?

What part of the distinction between "prepared before you play" and "story that can be told after you play" did you fail to understand?

What part of "I would argue that the real world does have plots" and "similarly all the campaigns I have played in have plots" did you simply not read at all?

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.

How is this NOT a badwrongfun post?

Because it never says "playing that way is wrong"? Because, in fact, it quite explicitly says that different people will have different opinions and tastes and styles of play?

Saying "I like X and I don't like Y" is not a "badwrongfun post".

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I've seen you mention this "drag-and-drop style" on numerous occasions and have never quite known what you meant by it. Please explain; in small words and short sentences as I'm a Lanefan of very little brain tonight.

Lanefan

 

[Ariosto]

As to history, I am not aware of any hard data; SPI accumulated quite a bit about its war-gamer demographic, but WotC's relatively limited research is I think ground-breaking in the RPG field. So, I go with what information I have been able to gather. A lot comes from personal experience that may be as unrepresentative as yours.

It's "not a badwrongfun post" because it says nothing about badness, wrongness or fun.

It has struck quite a few people that the "game philosophy" in the 2E books often seems at odds with the mechanical rules presented in that same context. The reason is simply that the rules were carried over from a game designed with a different philosophy.

That's the problem here. Wouldn't apples be much better if they looked, felt, smelled and tasted more like oranges? "Actually ... no," is the response of folks who happen to like apples and therefore directed themselves to the apple barrel instead of going to the crate of oranges.

Besides superhero games in general, I have found that Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia, King Arthur Pendragon and some others tend to encourage plot-driven scenarios -- and with results I have greatly enjoyed.

What do they have in common? They're not D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Large-scale improvising (e.g. inventing entire empires on the fly) is exactly what I don't want to do, as all it does is give me more work later a) trying to remember it all correctly, and b) trying to fit it in with whatever else existed beforehand. I'd rather do the large-scale heavy lifting ahead of time rather than after the fact, to give myself time for the small-scale work that will inevitably come up as the campaign rolls along.

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.

For a geographer (which by education at least, I am) maps are also important.

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.

Yet you still end up with maps anyway, or at least you'd better if you're tracking what you improvise; only difference is you've built these maps as you go along. 15 adventures in, you're still tied to a map (unless your world has no internal consistency at all and the mountain range that was there last winter isn't there now, and that raises all kinds of other issues) so why not just build the flippin' map ahead of time and get done with it?

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.

No it's not, unless you specifically set out to make it so; impossible if there's more than one party operating concurrently in your world (right now, mine has three). While not perhaps railroads, linear campaigns - wherein one mostly-unchanging party goes through a series of adventures whether story-connected or not - are to me the most dull. (they are also, unfortunately, the most common; probably because they are the assumed playstyle)

There will be tons of material that is not addressed in a worldbuilder's campaign. A good setting constructionist can minimize these inefficiencies.

So what. The worldbuilder doesn't know what will or will not be used until the campaign is over, but has already done much of the work and can mostly sit back and enjoy the ride. The setting builder has to work hard the whole time just to keep up...how is that more efficient?

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.

And also a lot more realistic; a good thing, in my view. If I want to see Stonehenge, for example, I've got to go to the Salisbury Plain, because that's where Stonehenge is; it's not going to appear in front of me if I wander into the Sooke Hills west of Victoria.

Detailed plots specify what things happen to the PCs and why

Fine.

but not necessarily where,

Why not? The "where" could very well *be* part of the plot.

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.

Huh? This seems a non-sequitur to me. In my world-built game, I can throw bad situations at my party with just as much gay abandon as I could if it was setting-built.

Lan-"have the Sooke Hills ever been mentioned before on ENWorld?"-efan