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

[I'm A Banana]

To walk into the session and abandon all ongoing campaign elements to do something that is a complete surprise to the DM? If this has ever happened, I'm going to file it under statistical anomoly and ignore it for this conversation. I really, really doubt that any DM has to deal with this on a regular basis

In an ideal scenario, this is exactly how I prefer to DM; as a reaction rather than as a proaction. The PC's create characters, I figure out how they're linked. The PC's choose to do something, I figure out what happens after they do it. I don't know what they're going to do beforehand, all I can do is be prepared to leap along with them. They want to do something I didn't anticipate? The answer, as in all good improv, is always and forever will be, "Yes."

Ideally, everything they do is something I didn't anticipate, because I don't enjoy it as much when I have to anticipate their actions.

Honestly, for the "casual crowd," this is how D&D has to be played. No pre-prep, just game. If you run a module, a lot of this work has presumably been done beforehand, but even then, PC's can always take a course that the adventure writer didn't have in mind.

The "casual crowd" is probably a statistical rarity for D&D, but it probably shouldn't be, going forward. If D&D ever wants to grab the broader, non-obsessive segment of the market, they're going to have to eliminate the concept of pre-prep almost entirely, so that all a DM has to do for the game is sit down at the table and PLAY.

In that respect, worldbuilding cannot be necessary, even a little bit, if that is to be a goal. It can be helpful and fun for those who are into it (so that if you like it, you can do it, and it can be rewarding), but it can't be something that every DM has to do a little bit of. It has to be something that can be ignored.

For that, you're going to need to teach DM's how to completely wing it. Worldbuilding is a luxury that most people don't have (though it's something fun for some as well, so you probably shouldn't remove it; just remove the NEED for it).

 

[Ourph]

You can say that, but it directly contradicts my own experiences. When I think of a different approach to a problem that the GM didn't foresee, and didn't detail just because, the answer is pretty much always "no", "You can't do that" or "There isn't one". In extreme cases this leads to heavily populated cites with no drainage or sewer systems because I wanted to know if there were tunnnels under the city.

I'm not sure how it can directly contradict your own experiences, since I'm talking about the way I run my game and I'm pretty sure we've never played an RPG together. I'm not arguing that railroading doesn't exist, just that asking players to talk to the DM before changing the entire focus of the campaign isn't railroading.

As to your later points, I wholeheartedly agree. As far as I'm concerned, the watersource of a town under siege in the current campaign context is part of the ongoing adventure and that's something I would expect to have details about as the DM. It's the watersource of the town 30 miles away that I wouldn't be worried about. If the PCs told me they were planning to abandon the current siege and move on to the town 30 miles away, then I would worry about that town's water supply.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

If the PCs told me they were planning to abandon the current siege and move on to the town 30 miles away, then I would worry about that town's water supply.

I wouldn't unless either I wanted it to have a direct effect on the PCs or the PCs asked about it. Otherwise it is functionally not there. I don't care about it.

 

[Ourph]

Sorry, but time is a limitation & a barrier. As in, waiting for you to work out an area if they want to go there. Sorry, your argument is false by the very definition of the word limitation. But, like I said, it is a matter of preference and nothing wrong with your chosen style.

What time? You're assuming that I'm making my players wait on something. I don't see where you're getting this idea. You seem to have some pretty strong assumptions about the way games are run that you're applying to what I'm saying that are leading you to draw a lot of false conclusions.

I ask my players to tell me beforehand if they want to make major changes to the direction of the campaign specifically so that they don't have to wait. Doing so also prevents the players from being limited by my ability to improvise. With notice, I can come up with a much more detailed and rich adventure setting for them to explore. If anything, I find the process of relying on generalized worldbuilding plus improvisation at the table to be the more limited option.

 

[Ourph]

For that, you're going to need to teach DM's how to completely wing it. Worldbuilding is a luxury that most people don't have (though it's something fun for some as well, so you probably shouldn't remove it; just remove the NEED for it).

I'm not sure 100% improv gaming is a good fit for the "casual" gamer crowd. It seems to me that learning to improvise an entertaining adventure completely off the cuff requires a lot more work than familiarizing yourself with a pre-written adventure well enough to deal with unexpected player solutions to the challenges while running it.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

100% improv is hard to pull off well. 0% improv is really hard to pull off well, and almost surely requires player compliance. Somewhere in between is going to be the optimal solution. Casual gamers would probably be better served by being taught how to improv better than by being taught to worldbuild better. I think that this was the purpose of the OP, and is where I have come to stand in my games. I think that prewritten adventures have little to do with the OP's objections to worldbuilding, and have nothing to do with mine. A general idea or where the game is going combined with a comfort with improv and the ability to take note are likely the only "necesary" things for a meaningful campaign.

 

[Imaro]

Couple of points first.

Imaro - when I said 3-5 hours to develop an adventure, I didn't specify edition. My bad, I was thinking 3e. However, that being said, if you can develop an entire adventure - presuming something that will last, say, 2-4 sessions, in under 3-5 hours, including maps, and everything else, that's pretty damn quick. However, all that being said, when I go back and look at what you call world building, I'd pretty much do the same thing. So, you call that world building, I do not. Since you refuse to define what you mean by world building, we cannot really proceed.

How about instead of you and Rounser asking me how I define "worldbuilding" we take the definition from the sources youyourself have brought up...

DMG 3.5- There are two types of worldbuildiung detailed here... Inside Out and Outside In.

Inside Out-"You start with a small area and build outward. Don't even worry about what the whole world looks like, or even the kingdom. Concentrate on a single village or town, preferably with a dungeon or other adventure site nearby. Expand slowly and only as needed. When the PC's are ready to leave the initial area (which might not be for ten or more playing sessions, depending on your first adventures), expand outward in all directions so you're ready no matter which way they go. Eventually you will have an entire kingdom developed, with the whole derived from what follows from the initial starting point. Proceed to other neighboring lands, determining the political situation in each one. Keep accurate notes as you play, for you may develop rumors of hostilities with a neighboring kingdom before you ever develop the kingdom itself

The advantage to this method is that you don't need to do alot of work to get started. Whip up a small area, and go. This method also ensures that you won't develop areas of the campaign that are never visited by the PC's and that you can develop things (and change your mind) as you go."

Outside In- "Start wiith the big picture-draw a map of an entire continent or a portion thereof. Alternatively, you could start with a grand design for how a number of kingdoms and nations interact or the outline of a vast empire. You could even start with a cosmology, deciding how the deities interact with the world, where the world is positioned in relation to other worlds, and what the world as a whole looks like. Only after you have this level of concept design worked out should you focus on a particular area.

When you begin more detaliled work, start with large-scale basics and work down to small-scale details. For example, after you have constructed your continent map, pick a single kingdom and create the ruler or rulers and the general conditions. From there focus on some substate or region within the kingdom, develop who and what lives there (and why), and pepper the region with a few hooks and secrets for later development. Finally once you get down to the small scale- a single community, a particular patch of forest or valley, or where ever you choose to start the campaign- develop the area in great detail. The specifics of the small area should reflect and tie back to the basics you have set up for the larger areas.

This method ensures that once you have started the campaign you're laready well on your way to having a complete setting. When things are moving along quickly in the campaign, you can focus on the characters and individual adventures, because the world is mostly done. This method also allows you to use foreshadowing of larger events, faraway places, and grander adventures earlier on in the campaign.

So there you go, defintiions of the 2 generally accepted types of worldbuilding from the 3.5 DMG.

Now to go deeper into it, There are certain areas that overlap in adventure design and worldbuilding, such as NPC design... but things such as a starting town, shops, a village near the dungeon, etc. are clearly cited as worldbuilding... independent of whether they are interacted with by the PC's or not.

SIDE NOTE: You know in looking through the DMG, I find it strange that you are complaining about there not being enough focus on scripted adventure design as opposed to world building when the entirety of chapter 3 is about adventure building (about 60 pages total). Also the opening to the campaign chapter is not what you cited before (it may have not been you Hussar, if so I apologize and direct this at whoever it actually was) the actual opening is this...

Encounters are to advetures what advetures are to campaigns. Good adventures make up good campigns. Creating a campaign is the most difficult, but most rewarding task a DM faces.

It is important to distinguish the difference between a campaign and a world, since the terms often seem to be used interchangeably. A campign is composed of a series of adventures , the NPC's involved in those adventures and the events surounding everything that happens in those adventures. When you guide players through adventures you have designed and the players choose the paths for their characters wwithin those adventures you are running a campaign.

A world is a fictional place in which a campaign is set. It's also often called a campaign setting. A campaign requires a world in which the action takes place, but whether you create your own world or use an already established setting, the campaign you run is always your own..."

I think this clearly states what role adventures (whether scripted or not) play in a campaign... plus the actual chapter on adventure design (roughly 60 pgs), which comes before any type of worldbuilding advice (roughly 40 pgs), and I'm starting to wonder where all this supposed focus on worldbuilding is?

 

[Ariosto]

"I should like balls infinitely better," she replied, "if they were carried on in a different manner; but there is something insufferably tedious in the usual process of such a meeting. It would surely be much more rational if conversation instead of dancing were made the order of the day."


"Much more rational, my dear Caroline, I dare say, but it would not be near so much like a ball."

I greatly enjoyed the Enemy Within campaign for Warhammer, which as I recall was pretty heavily a story-driven railroad. I also recall that it was set in a vividly realized world, and that the details on the horizon at every turn added to my enjoyment. For one thing, the world development facilitated more improvised interludes between chapters of the plot-line; for another, it helped the GM to add color to scenes.

There were a number of characteristics associated with Warhammer that helped define its distinctive identity as a game and came to be expected of it. The same could be said, for instance, of Vampire: The Masquerade, Paranoia, or many other games.

Now, there are many fine ways to play an RPG. I see trouble in this thread from folks such as Hussar who propose that it is inferior to play D&D as D&D was originally designed to be played. It's like saying that fish would be so much better if they had legs instead of fins and wool instead of scales. Indeed, that would make for better mutton -- but not at all for better fish!

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not sure 100% improv gaming is a good fit for the "casual" gamer crowd. It seems to me that learning to improvise an entertaining adventure completely off the cuff requires a lot more work than familiarizing yourself with a pre-written adventure well enough to deal with unexpected player solutions to the challenges while running it.

It's a tragic day when D&D players have forgotten the fine art of a good random generation table.

Plus, it's not that hard.

I mean, for the casual crowd, you don't need campaigns and plotlines and 30 levels. You just need a dungeon, a dragon, and perhaps some treasure to take from it or a town to threaten with it. You need a ruleset that helps you make all that on the fly in a balanced fashion, along with making a character, without taking more than 5 minutes to do it. And maybe some good DMing advice (like "say yes," "steal, rip, burn, and borrow," and "snowball it"). No one cares if it's not the next Tolkein 'cuz no one is looking for that in a casual game.

You also need to reduce the time, effort, and "toys" you need to play.

D&D is not a "lite" game in any respect, even in 4e (though it makes some admirable and some less admirable stabs at it). If you're looking to preserve time and effort, you're probably not playing D&D.

 

[Kask]

Couple of points first.

Kask - I did take your original comments to me as questioning my experience gaming and trying to set yourself upon your own credentials. If I misread that, I appologize. I strongly dislike piddling contests in this manner, because they actually prove nothing. For the record, I started gaming in 1980.

That was a great time to start, wasn't it? I only started a couple years earlier. We experienced the birthing of AD&D, Traveller, Rune Quest, T&T, Arduin, etc. A lot has transpired in the RPG arena. We can count our selves as lucky to have gamed throughout it. Peace, and may your games always be as exciting as your 1st adventure.