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

[Ariosto]

The amount of time and effort needed for a given undertaking can depend in part on the rules set in use. Pre-WotC D&D is extremely "light" relative to more recent games by the name. That's especially true of the original set without the supplements.

What I've seen most often is "inside out" and "outside in" in parallel. The main dungeon and home base get the most preliminary detail, but a good bit of the rest of the world is broadly sketched. That works very well with the traditional assumption that the dungeon is initially to be the focus of exploration -- which was pretty natural when it stood out as one of the distinctive features of the game, the reason it was called Dungeons & Dragons. A dynamic dungeon can be an excellent "little sand box" for casual play, and old D&D sets provided tools for making its creation fairly quick and easy.

For some people, that initial set-up may largely suffice for many sessions of play. There can be plenty of time to flesh out the wider milieu just a bit at a time, staying well ahead of players' explorations.

Reuse of elements is an asset of long-term play in the same world. The kinds and amounts of detail in a traditional campaign tend to be a bit different than in designing "adventure scenarios". The volume written down to describe a given area tends to be less than in a "module" for publication, because so much information can be retained in the designer's memory (to which a reader would not have access) and because modules tend to specify much that would more probably be improvised in play by a DM refereeing his own creation.

An "adventure" write-up typically has more limited replay value than what a "world-builder" produces in the same amount of time. The former focuses more on "encounters" meant to be met but once, the latter more on elements that can interact dynamically over long periods. The former attempts to anticipate and guide players' actions, "zooming in" on detailed descriptions of discrete events, whereas the latter emphasizes a "big picture" of places and ongoing processes.

The Griffin Mountain book for RuneQuest was for my taste an ideal selection of material for getting a campaign underway.

It remains true that D&D by its nature demands more time and effort than, say, Monopoly or Scrabble -- or many board games with heroic-fantasy themes.

 

[Kask]

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.

Bingo! My point made. You require of your players beforehand. That's a limitation. I won't argue the point further as you have made it for me.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

@Kask- At no point did he say require. You seem to be putting words in his mouth.

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...

Emphasis mine.

I think that this kind of thing is what the OP is making a case against. The advice has been:

1) Campaigns need a World.
2) See the chapter on worldbulding for advice on how to create a detailed World.
3) Campaigns are made of Adventures.
4) Adventures are made of Encounters.

That is not at all advice about how a world can be emergent from a campaign. Campaigns need a world =/= campaigns create a world.

I think that advice on how to focus on the action around the PCs and advice on how to make sure that your emergent world is consistent would be better than conventional worldbuilding for both beginning and casual gamers, as well as gamers with limited time.

 

[Imaro]

@Kask- At no point did he say require. You seem to be putting words in his mouth.

Emphasis mine.

I think that this kind of thing is what the OP is making a case against. The advice has been:

1) Campaigns need a World.
2) See the chapter on worldbulding for advice on how to create a detailed World.
3) Campaigns are made of Adventures.
4) Adventures are made of Encounters.

That is not at all advice about how a world can be emergent from a campaign. Campaigns need a world =/= campaigns create a world.

I think that advice on how to focus on the action around the PCs and advice on how to make sure that your emergent world is consistent would be better than conventional worldbuilding for both beginning and casual gamers, as well as gamers with limited time.

Are you purposefully ignoring the inside out method? It addresses what is generally needed as the bare minimum to structure an adventure in and expands as the characters grow. This exactly the advice you all are argueing for but it is still classified as worldbuilding in the DMG. Honestly this is where part of the confusion (and thus the whole exchange with Hussar and Rounser about my definition of worldbuilding.), IMHO, is arising. I would argue my definition of worldbuilding is very much consistent with what is generally considered worldbuilding (as shown by the excerpts I quoted), and in fact it is they who are renamming and reclassifying elements of wordbuilding in a bid to create a distinction between parts of the world that really doesn't exsist.

Hussar is calling this "setting"-building when in fact it falls under the category of what is considered worldbuilding. The thing is I haven't seen either him or rounser give a true definition of what falls under "setting" and what falls under "worldbuilding" according to how they're choosing to use the words. All I've seen is the arbitrary declaration of almost any element of the world that the PC's can interact with as "setting" for the adventure. Yet ultimately, especially in a sandbox campaign this is meaningless since a PC can, theoretically interact with anything in the world and thus the entirety of the world becomes "setting". Furthermore it draws no distinction in the type of interaction necessary... is the creation of a pantheon of deities worldbuilding or setting? Does the answer change dependent upon if one of the PC's is a follower of the pantheon? What if they seek out a priest of a particular deity in the pantheon?

Here's another example... Your adventurers will need a "homebase"... now if you detail a village that sits next to the dungeon, is that worldbuilding? What if this homebase is only where PC's buy equipment only to go back to the dungeon? The adventure is the encounters in the dungeon, the village is not explicitely a part of this and the PC's could choose to never interact with the village... so is it setting or an element of the world?

Finally, again , I'm confused... what exactly does "conventional" world building advocate? I use both inside-out and outside-in depending on the type of campaign I want... personally though, I see the casual, beginning DM best served by the inside-out method of worldbuilding and am curious to hear why you and others feel this method would be bad for a beginner or casual DM?

 

[Hussar]

Imaro: The opening I quoted was from the 3.0 DMG, if the 3.5 is different, I wouldn't know. But, considering your own quote includes the line that world building is a necessity, then, I'm not sure what the difference really is.

As far as your definition goes, you're pretty much stuck with lumping everything under world building. By your own admission, world building overlaps with NPC creation, adventure building, etc. I find this definition far too broad and doesn't serve the purpose very well.

Yes, there is a lengthy section on how to build an adventure. That's great. But, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the Campaign creation section (which in the 3.0 DMG directly specifies either using a pregen setting or going on to the next chapter which is... World building.). Which, in my mind is not the best way to create a campaign.

 

[Hussar]

Are you purposefully ignoring the inside out method? It addresses what is generally needed as the bare minimum to structure an adventure in and expands as the characters grow. This exactly the advice you all are argueing for but it is still classified as worldbuilding in the DMG. Honestly this is where part of the confusion (and thus the whole exchange with Hussar and Rounser about my definition of worldbuilding.), IMHO, is arising. I would argue my definition of worldbuilding is very much consistent with what is generally considered worldbuilding (as shown by the excerpts I quoted), and in fact it is they who are renamming and reclassifying elements of wordbuilding in a bid to create a distinction between parts of the world that really doesn't exsist.

The problem with inside out world building is that you are still crafting setting for its own sake, not for the sake of the campaign. It doesn't matter if you start micro or start macro, whenever your focus leaves the campaign at hand and goes into building beyond that, I think that's bad advice.

OTOH, looking at what you detail for your campaign world, I'd barely call that world building at all. You've got adventure locations and character generation rules. If that's what you consider to be world building, then congratulations, we're completely on the same page. You've adopted exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Imaro]

As far as your definition goes, you're pretty much stuck with lumping everything under world building. By your own admission, world building overlaps with NPC creation, adventure building, etc. I find this definition far too broad and doesn't serve the purpose very well.

Actually what I'm saying is that the source you site looks at worldbuilding in this manner and thus if you're using it as a reference to make your points... you should use it's definition otherwise you're being misleading. It doesn't matter what my definition or your definition of worldbuilding is... if you're arguing against the recent and common emphasis on worldbuilding in a game ... shouldn't you also be examining what that source considers worldbuilding and how that relates to what you're talking about? If they use worldbuilding vs. your designated "setting" but address everything you're talking about the only distinction is that you've choseen to make up your own word for what is considered by the authors of the DMG to fall under worldbuilding.

Yes, there is a lengthy section on how to build an adventure. That's great. But, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the Campaign creation section (which in the 3.0 DMG directly specifies either using a pregen setting or going on to the next chapter which is... World building.). Which, in my mind is not the best way to create a campaign.

Well again I can only reference the 3.5 books, but by my quote above it clearly lays out the fact that a campaign is made of adventures and the "world" is where these adventures take place... of course since supposedly in chapter 3 you read over 60 pages on adventures... they don't need to go over that again so they address the other aspect of it... worldbuilding. I'm sorry you've chosen to try and make a distinction between "setting" vs. "worldbuilding" (which I find you still haven't specified exactly what it entails) when the DMG doesn't ascribe to your definitions, yet addresses exactly what you are arguing for.

 

[Imaro]

The problem with inside out world building is that you are still crafting setting for its own sake, not for the sake of the campaign. It doesn't matter if you start micro or start macro, whenever your focus leaves the campaign at hand and goes into building beyond that, I think that's bad advice.

I call Shenanigans on this. There is no way you can only create what the campaign (and honestly how you're using this word in this post is a little confusing) at hand needs...unless your improvising 100%. The minute you make something the PC's choose not to interact with guess what? You made something that has no relevance to the campaign at hand. Unless you can determine everything your PC's will do, need or want...eventually they will either need something you have not created or ignore something you have... though you may have believed they needed it for the adventure. Again the only way to do what you are proposing is to railroad or improvise 100%.

OTOH, looking at what you detail for your campaign world, I'd barely call that world building at all. You've got adventure locations and character generation rules. If that's what you consider to be world building, then congratulations, we're completely on the same page. You've adopted exactly what I'm talking about.

Assume much? You're taking examples I used in a post because you still haven't clarified the line between "setting" and worldbuilding and assuming that's all I detail for my campaign....uhm, ok but like I said earlier my method depends on the type of campaign I want to run.

How is a detailed village homebase an "adventure location"? What adventure is taking place here? Your definition of setting is so vague it is confusing and pointless. I ask questions to get clarification and you continually avoid answering the questions in a direct manner. Seriously, why didn't you just state if they were "setting" and if the conditionals in any way changed that?

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Are you purposefully ignoring the inside out method? It addresses what is generally needed as the bare minimum to structure an adventure in and expands as the characters grow...*snip*...I would argue my definition of worldbuilding is very much consistent with what is generally considered worldbuilding (as shown by the excerpts I quoted), and in fact it is they who are renamming and reclassifying elements of wordbuilding in a bid to create a distinction between parts of the world that really doesn't exsist.

I am certainly not ignoring the inside out method. You definition is pretty consistent with the definition of worldbuilding in the 3.5 DMG. There definitely has been an attempt to redefine and reclassify things to create distinction, and yes, the distinction does exist. That is the point, and is not at all a bad thing. It is the act of knowledge creation. Adding definition to our knowledge base.

All I've seen is the arbitrary declaration of almost any element of the world that the PC's can interact with as "setting" for the adventure. Yet ultimately, especially in a sandbox campaign this is meaningless since a PC can, theoretically interact with anything in the world and thus the entirety of the world becomes "setting".

In my definition, it is not what they interact with, it is that the creation is directed AT the PCs. To directly create the story of the PCs. In this case, setting creation would be completely contrary to the conventional idea of what is a sandbox, as sandbox play requires a series of assumptions that are contrary to structuring play solely directed at the PCs.

The point is that in sandbox play, the DM decides what is there, and creates excess so that the players "have a choice". The thing is, the choice is still limited to a list of what the DM decides to give them. This is worldbuilding. With the style of play consistent with my definition of setting creation, the players and DM together decide the goals and theme of the game, create characters that will allow them to explore these goals and themes, and then the DM gives them a plot that allows the characters to make choices that explore the theme. The world in a setting oriented game is emergent from both the players and the DM. This is drastically different than traditional worldbuilding, especially sandbox play.

Here's another example... Your adventurers will need a "homebase"... now if you detail a village that sits next to the dungeon, is that worldbuilding? What if this homebase is only where PC's buy equipment only to go back to the dungeon? The adventure is the encounters in the dungeon, the village is not explicitely a part of this and the PC's could choose to never interact with the village... so is it setting or an element of the world?

Let us say that a "home base" has been designed. The "home base" is setting creation if it is created with the PCs story in mind. It will be restricted to addressing theme, plot, goals of play, or characterization, and details will be added to facilitate this. If it is created because we think that we need a "home base", but not for reasons of plot, goals of play, theme, or for characterization, it is not setting creation, even if the characters interact with it. If the characters never interact with it, this "home base" by definition never addresses the concerns of setting, so it has to be world building. Campaigns with themes, goals, plots, or characters that do not need a "home base" only have it as a consequence of worldbuilding. The setting doesn't require it.

Finally, again , I'm confused... what exactly does "conventional" world building advocate? I use both inside-out and outside-in depending on the type of campaign I want... personally though, I see the casual, beginning DM best served by the inside-out method of worldbuilding and am curious to hear why you and others feel this method would be bad for a beginner or casual DM?

For world building, the inside out method is by far the best one for a casual gamer. The thing is, advice on what elements to include in prep does not really require all that worldbuilding implies. Concentrate on what will create good adventures. These are what make up a campaign. Good campaigns are a string of good adventures, especially when they link well. Adventures are necessary for a campaign. Worldbuilding, even the inside out method, is not necessary for a good campaign.

Obviously most games fall somewhere between pure worldbuiding and pure setting creation. This is fine. I am just trying to clarify what is setting and what is world. When this is clarified, then we can say "Create adventures. Concentrate on setting. Any world building you do is extra."

There are elements of world building that are high yield for someone that only wants to create setting. These are typically very drag-and-drop in nature, and many take advantage of reskinning. Strangely enough, language creation is likely very high yield for those that have both the time and the talent. It will create a level of immersion that is pretty unparalelled, and give a fantastic illusion that the world exists outside the PCs, even if none of it does. Game mechanics are another way to reinforce both the illusion of the world as well as the theme of a game. Reskinning classes/races will add a lot to the theme of a campaign without creating a lot of stuff that won't be used.

 

[Raven Crowking]

By your own admission, world building overlaps with NPC creation, adventure building, etc. I find this definition far too broad and doesn't serve the purpose very well.

What purpose, exactly, doesn't it serve?

Fish are animals, salmon are fish, this particular creature is a salmon.

"Animals" is a broad set that describes a number of living creatures.

"Fish" is a subset of animals that describes a limited number of living creatures within the original set.

"Salmon" is a subset of fish, that describes a limited number of living creatures within the "fish" subset.

The specific salmon pointed out is an example of a thing that can correctly be defined as a salmon, a fish, an animal, and in a plethora of other ways.

Because "Animals" doesn't narrowly define a particular instance (i.e., "This Creature") does not mean that the terms "Animals", "Fish", or "Salmon" are too broad -- they describe rather specificially a particular set or subset.

Likewise, world-building is an overarching set, akin to "Animals", wherein there are a number of overlapping subsets. I get that you don't like what the terms mean. However, your not liking what the terms mean doesn't change their meaning.

If you focused on the particular subset of world-building that you dislike, it would be a lot easier to see what merit your points may have.


RC