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

[Lanefan]

For me, it would be, "Hey, is there a thieves guild in this town?" "umm, sure, why do you ask?" "Well, I'd really like to get involved in that, cos, it would totally fit with my character and I have some great ideas." "Ok, that's cool. You're going to have to do a bit of background searching into the town, make some contacts first."

And, since that's going to take some in game time, we'll come back to that next week and poof, now there's a thieves guild in the town, because that's what the players wanted to interact with.

And here's the thing. At no time did I have to detail up the heirarchy of the thieves guild until such time as the players made it an issue.

However, you've suddenly got a pile of work to do between sessions; which could have been at least part-way done beforehand. Me, I prefer to at least try and get the setting to the point where it'll run itself, leaving me free to worry about the minutae the players are getting their characters involved in during the session.

Not world building, setting construction, because the plot of the game now focuses on the thieves guild. If the players never brought up the thieves guild and I as the DM had no intention of using a storyline with a thieves guild, the theives guild never exists.

Except that it does exist, if only in your head as one of many logical things for a decent-size town to have in it. Just because something is never interacted with does not mean it doesn't exist.

The really useful thing about world-building is that once the world - in particular, its history - is at least vaguely built you can then start mining it for stories. Sure, sometimes you can get lucky and have something you make up on the fly really fit together nicely after the fact; but unless you've got a memory like a computer you're more than likely going to end up contradicting yourself at some point, and bang goes internal consistency.

For my current campaign I spent more time than usual on its history - and I now find myself with more stories to tell in that game than I'll ever have time for; never mind what the players will come up with themselves along the way.

That said, I don't detail everything down to the nth degree - players ask me for some important NPC's name and I wing it (and hope I remember to write it down!) - but I know what culture is where and roughly what it's doing; I know who the 51 Emperors have been since the founding of the empire; I know the current politics and who (at least by position) most of the major players are; and so on, thus allowing me to tie the partys' (yes, there's 3 of 'em now) stories into the larger tale as it proves suitable.

Lanefan

 

[Ariosto]

"Hey, is there a thieves guild in this town?" "umm, sure, why do you ask?" "Well, I'd really like to get involved in that, cos, it would totally fit with my character and I have some great ideas."

In another game, the player might investigate the question in character, and not have to wait a real-world week.

One of the most important parts of world-building is creating options the players need in order to make their own choices and controlling their own fates. However, this is a part of world-building that can't be done until the campaign has already started. Locking in details before the campaign has started limits the options available to both the players and the DM

As the example above shows, not being ready today limits the options available today.

How does preparation limit options? Only to the extent that one decides to "lock in" details. If your game is one in which the world is as malleable as mere dream, then so be it. Rumours at least of the cats of Ulthar and the marble cloud city of Serranian might be more appealing than a mere featureless plain.

The players with whom I am acquainted certainly expect more. They come to play their characters, not to be told, "You can't go there or do that, because I have not made it up yet." I need at least enough grasp of the world to improvise details as needed. The players appreciate internal consistency. Why did they meet a caravan far from the main road? It sought to avoid paying toll to bandits by taking a side route that turned out to be longer than expected.

So, all NPC's in your world are frozen in place, never making any decisions until such time as the PC's interact with them?

So, you think that's the only alternative to having the impending destruction of the world depend on what the PCs do?

 

[Greg K]

So, you're saying that your players, with no preamble, with no pre-existing ideas, suddenly decided to take over the Thieve's Guild with absolutely no warning? Wow, that's pretty much completely alien to my games.

It might be alien to you. However, I have had my players tell me at the start of a session that they were going some place totally different than where they had planned at the end of the previous session. Until that point, the place they were heading was simply a place on the map that one of the character had chosen for his homeland and where he had ties to a knightly order and some npcs (family, fiancee and rival) . Had I not had notes prepared, I would have never been able to run on the fly and there would have been no game for the evening (that or the characters would have been forced to go through what I had prepared). However, the notes allowed me to create an extremely enjoyable adventure of courtly intrigue based around the character's disappearance and sudden return home.

In contrast, your players had to wait a week rather than get to do what they wanted

 

[S'mon]

I think it's possible to have a good D&D campaign with zero world-building. The GM simply runs adventure-of-the-week in an episodic format similar to traditional TV serials.

Personally, I have been a bit of a setting Nazi in the past (though as usual Hussar way overstates his case and comes across highly obnoxious) and I think now 4e's points-of-light and refusal to world-build is better than the top-down world-builder approach.

Better that the world be emergent in play; sketch a few ideas but focus on what matters to the players. Connections and details can be improvised as the game goes along; I think you get something much more interesting than a pre-written world.

 

[resistor]

A lot of the posts in this thread are only contrasting opposite extremes of hi-fi-worldbuilding vs. no-worldbuilding. In reality, I think there's a spectrum.

I know that my own practice is what I would refer to as "light worldbuilding." I sketch the relevant political subdivisions of my setting, and name/flesh out key political players. Same for ecclesiastical and arcane players, and major organizations. I place major cities (or ones with plot importance) on the map.

But I don't plan exactly how many people live in Hommlet, or the name of the orc chief who raids in mountain pass #47. I don't name a hundred minor gods or assign names and motivations to every member of the royal court (unless it's going to be part of the plot).

Basically, I create high-level structure in advance, and then fill in the details as it becomes relevant to play.

 

[Lanefan]

How does preparation limit options? Only to the extent that one decides to "lock in" details. If your game is one in which the world is as malleable as mere dream, then so be it. Rumours at least of the cats of Ulthar and the marble cloud city of Serranian might be more appealing than a mere featureless plain.

The players with whom I am acquainted certainly expect more. They come to play their characters, not to be told, "You can't go there or do that, because I have not made it up yet." I need at least enough grasp of the world to improvise details as needed. The players appreciate internal consistency.

Agreed in full.

That said, one of the most lasting memories from a game I was in many years ago was when a party, instead of sailing their boat to the closer end of the island, decided to sail around it and land on the other end...until a Dreadnaught-sized hand came down out of the sky to bar their way, accompanied by a booming voice saying "NO. THAT WAY DOES NOT EXIST."

The DM had not designed that end of the island yet.

The boat turned around.

Lan-"any DM should be allowed to pull this stunt once per campaign"-efan

 

[Hussar]

It might be alien to you. However, I have had my players tell me at the start of a session that they were going some place totally different than where they had planned at the end of the previous session. Until that point, the place they were heading was simply a place on the map that one of the character had chosen for his homeland and where he had ties to a knightly order and some npcs (family, fiancee and rival) . Had I not had notes prepared, I would have never been able to run on the fly and there would have been no game for the evening (that or the characters would have been forced to go through what I had prepared). However, the notes allowed me to create an extremely enjoyable adventure of courtly intrigue based around the character's disappearance and sudden return home.

In contrast, your players had to wait a week rather than get to do what they wanted

I dunno. Maybe it's because I talk to my players frequently outside of game time. If they want to do something completely ninety degrees from what they were planning on doing, they give me a heads up beforehand.

To me, that's just being a good player. I would certainly never expect to be able to sit down at someone's game, when they were expecting me to do X and totally blindside them with Y and then expect them to be able to run the game.

For example, my current players are on the Isle of Dread. Now, they have a ship, so they could leave the island. But, they've stated that they want to stay on the island and explore for while. Now, if they were to sit down at the table next week and then say, "Oh, hey, I want to sail to the Pomarj" I gotta admit, I'd be a bit annoyed.

I certainly would never do that to any DM and expect him to be able to immediately cater to my whims.

I think it's possible to have a good D&D campaign with zero world-building. The GM simply runs adventure-of-the-week in an episodic format similar to traditional TV serials.

And I don't think you have to go that far. You can still do a long story arc without doing a lot of world building. You can even do sandbox games without a lot of world building (if the sandbox is pretty sparce ).

Personally, I have been a bit of a setting Nazi in the past (though as usual Hussar way overstates his case and comes across highly obnoxious) and I think now 4e's points-of-light and refusal to world-build is better than the top-down world-builder approach.

Better that the world be emergent in play; sketch a few ideas but focus on what matters to the players. Connections and details can be improvised as the game goes along; I think you get something much more interesting than a pre-written world.

And I totally agree with this point. You've said it much better than I could. Thank you. I guess it's because I've been forced by people continuously misrepresenting what I'm saying that I feel I have to overstate things or people just start taking things in a completely different direction.

I mean, I've got someone in this thread telling me that having any over arching storyline is equal to railroading. That having a doom cult in your game is automatically railroading. I guess I feel that if I don't overstate and be bloody pedantic about it, too many people start playing silly buggers.

 

[Andor]

But, world building has nothing to do with this. He neglected setting. But, the names and motivations of the people the PC's are directly interacting with have nothing to do with world building and everything to do with plot and setting.

World building would be detailing the family trees of those five councilors. It has nothing to do with the plot (Find the traitor) and exists pretty much independently. The names of the councilors OTOH, DOES directly impact the plot (if for no other reason than reducing confusion) and is required.

Look, again, I'm not saying that you can go with Father Generic the Cleric of Good Gawd B gives you Quest B17 to recover Macguffin 12. That's ridiculous. It breaks mood for one thing. Totally ruins feel. Good DMing advice would be to have at least a little more detail than that.

However, bad DMing advice says that you need to create an entire church of Good Gawd B before you even sit down at the table.

I've never seen anyone, anywhere, ever suggest that detailing all 20,000 members of the Temple of Bhab right down to the details of their pocket lint and what their first beloved pet's name was is a requirement for good GMing.

Setting that up as what you are deriding is a strawman arguement, and not a very good one, because you're not fooling anyone.

However what you seem to be saying is that any GM is a fool who details anything beyond what he knows the PCs will interact with, and to the minimum degree required is a fool who is obsessed with self indulgent wankery to the detriment of his game, and if that is indeed what you are saying, it's just dead wrong.

Why? Because Councilor A with no living familly is a damm sight different from councilor B with an estranged wife, a scheming mistress, a daughter he dotes on and a mad father locked up in a room in his manor. Any or all of whom the PCs might get a notion to interact with, but only if they exist. Even if the PCs interact with none of them the NPC is still going to behave differently because he has people to be wary of and to protect that will make him behave differently from councilor A who never has to worry about loved ones becoming hostages.

Likewise if a city has a thieves guild, even if the PCs never interact with it directly it will affect things they do interact with simply by virtue of it's existence. It's a power within the city that interacts with everything from street crime to shopkeepers (who have to pay protection money) to the availability of blackmarket items.

I have played in games where GMs don't know these things ahead of time and I HATE that shrodinger's cat sensation when you ask a question and you can just see the whole damm city shift as the GM trys to come up with an answer.

Can you over detail to the detriment of the game? Absolutely, and no one has claimed any differently.

But, if you want your world to feel deeper than ye generic console rpg you need the depth that comes from details.

At a mimimum, for places the PCs are expected to pass a few days:

For a small community of less than 30 or so you should have at least names, relations and roles for everyone.

For a midsized community of less than 1,000 or so:
Places the PCs are likely to visit like taverns, blacksmith, village leaders etc with names and faces. You should a couple of notes of things of interest or surprising gaps and a reason why. "Midvale has no resturants following a string of poisoned diners 20 years ago, the murders were never solved, but it's now considered bad luck in midvale to dine outside ones own home." "Shaleford has had a famous elven smith in residence for 100 years now."

For a Major city or sizeable region you should at least know what the powers are, and have a face for each of them. Merchants, nobles, cults, thieves guilds, monastic orders, gypsy bands, etc. If it's something that is likely impact people the PCs will interact with then you should know about it.

A brilliant or at least very experienced GM can get away with less than this of course. And there is no need to repeatedly draw up things things the PCs never see. If you detailed a farming family for the village of Little Belching, but the PCs blew through without talking to anyone there's no reason not to use it at the town they do stop at.

I promise you that no matter how good a GM you are I could tell whether you had done that kind of background work or not, and I would enjoy your game more if you had. Nothing ruins my suspension of disbelief like the sensation that the world exists only where my characters eyes are resting at that exact instant.

 

[Greg K]

I dunno. Maybe it's because I talk to my players frequently outside of game time. If they want to do something completely ninety degrees from what they were planning on doing, they give me a heads up beforehand.

In the example I gave, the players were waiting for me to arrive from class.

During their wait, they started talking and, suddenly, realized that a plague was working its way toward two kingdoms. Then, they pieced together that the leaders of the only existing wizard academy was responsible- that the wizard's guild had trained nearly every court wizard was also cause for alarm.

Time being of the essence, they changed their existing plans and decided to follow this hook to protect their homelands. The closest kingdom being threatened was the knight's homeland so they went there first. I was not about to tell them no nor was I annoyed. It was perfectly in character and made sense for them to do it,. Then again, I also run a pretty immersive sandbox game and running on the fly comes with the territory.

That I recalled the knight's background and his disappearance meant it needed to be addressed first.

 

[S'mon]

And I totally agree with this point. You've said it much better than I could. Thank you. I guess it's because I've been forced by people continuously misrepresenting what I'm saying that I feel I have to overstate things or people just start taking things in a completely different direction.

Try not overstating, and you'll find people don't get annoyed with you.

Seriously, you make a lot of good points, but you state them so aggressively that you get a negative reaction even from people inclined to agree with you. Try reading over what you've written before posting, think about how it will come across to others. Don't be afraid to qualify statements - "World-building can be bad if..." "It may be appropriate to give players what they want if..."