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

[Imaro]

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.

Thank you, I felt the same way... but there apparently was a disconnect with Hussar and rounser when it came to how I was defining worldbuilding, when in fact I felt it was they who reclassified and renamed things... yet have not, IMO, clearly and concisely stated the distinction that has been created in their new definitions and word use. I don't know if I agree with you that this distinction exists in the way you all are presenting it (as seperate from worldbuilding) or that it is necessarily "Adding definition to our knowledge base." so much as creating a distinction I believe is minimal at best and boils down to methodology (as another subset of inside-out, outside-in, etc.) worldbuilding at best. YMMV of course.

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.

First let me say thank you for defining what it is you mean with "setting" creation. Second this still IMO, isn't a good way to have new or casual DM's go into creating their first campaign.

First it assumes that PC's actually exist before gameplay begins... yet conventional (and IMO correct) wisdom says create your characters and run the first adventure on the same day so as not to loose momentum. Thus many casual or new DM's may be forced to create with no prior knowledge of who, or what the PC's in their game will be, what the themes are or many other things.


IMO, rather than try to improv 100% after character creation or stop the game (perhaps not even getting to play) until everyone as a group has hashed out theme, goals, etc. A new or casual DM is much better served by creating in general terms what is mostly likely needed for the world to facilitate gameplay. Also this assumes a new player is even concerned or interested in constructing these things when they've just started playing. IMO, themes goals etc. can evolve naturally through play but I don't think it's a good idea to have players who are new or casual building themes and goals, before ever touching a die.

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.

So you're telling me the best way for a new or casual DM to get a game going is to have everyone come over to play D&D and then spend hours creating characters, discussing theme, figuring out goals and then giving the DM some time to sketch out what is necessary and design an adventure... I don't see it. Getting new and casual players to actually play is what is mosyt important, IMO, and this is best done by already having things in place for them to interact with. Again this is about new and/or casual DM's not experienced or invested players.

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.

I think perhaps you are confused about what the inside-out method has you detail in worldbuilding. It exspressly advises you to create only what is necessary for play. You seem to be hung up on the fact that it tells you to guesstimate what may be necessary for play as opposed to sitting down for hours with new players to construct only what is necessary... I don't see your method as well suited to new or casual players.

Even though you, Hussar and rounser claim worldbuilding isn't necessary for a "good" campaign I think you're wrong. Firsyt a "good" campaign is a purely subjective thing and while adventures are definitely necessary to have a campaign period... adventures, even "good" ones (however we choose to judge them) will not create a "good" campaign for a player who wants to explore a world as opposed to go on adventure after adventure. That's one of the problems with the tenor of this whole thread, there are many posters using words like "good" with thier own oppinions on what "good" is stated asfact... you don't know what makes a "good" campaign for everyone and it is likely for many an interesting and intriguing world can make an average campaign a "good" one.

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."

And even though I don't agree that your method is better for new or casual DM's (or even that a distinction between setting and worldbuilding is in any way necessary) I do thank you and appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to clarify your position.

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.

Hey you'll get no disagreement from me, but then I don't think worldbuilding is a waste of time anymore than I think creating terrain, making props, using voices at the table, or vivid descriptions is a waste of time... IMO, they all add something to the game, now whether each of these suits your particular style as a DM or not is for each to decide on his own.

 

[Ourph]

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.

Seriously?

I ask my players

Whose posts are you reading?

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

First let me say thank you for defining what it is you mean with "setting" creation. Second this still IMO, isn't a good way to have new or casual DM's go into creating their first campaign.

No problem. This is a perfect example of how reasonable people can reasonably dsiagree. It is OK if you like things different.

First it assumes that PC's actually exist before gameplay begins... yet conventional (and IMO correct) wisdom says create your characters and run the first adventure on the same day so as not to loose momentum. Thus many casual or new DM's may be forced to create with no prior knowledge of who, or what the PC's in their game will be, what the themes are or many other things.


IMO, rather than try to improv 100% after character creation or stop the game (perhaps not even getting to play) until everyone as a group has hashed out theme, goals, etc. A new or casual DM is much better served by creating in general terms what is mostly likely needed for the world to facilitate gameplay. Also this assumes a new player is even concerned or interested in constructing these things when they've just started playing. IMO, themes goals etc. can evolve naturally through play but I don't think it's a good idea to have players who are new or casual building themes and goals, before ever touching a die.

Here is where we disagree. Deciding on goals and themes are not hard, shouldn't take long, and are actually necessary for players to get a consistent and cohesive idea of what the point of the campaign is and what it is about.

Player A: "Lets play a light hearted game that is not too serious. I would like something action packed. Maybe something like Indiana Jones, only somewhat campy, and set in the renaissance."
DM: "Cool, like three musketeers meets Indiana Jones, as if it were written by Shakespear?"
Player B: "That sounds great. This means tomb raiding, right?"
Player C: "Tomb raiding and Romance!"
ALL: "No!"
Player A: "Action and camp with tombraiding, no romance!"
ALL: "Great."

Less than 2 minutes, and we have our goals and our themes.

So you're telling me the best way for a new or casual DM to get a game going is to have everyone come over to play D&D and then spend hours creating characters, discussing theme, figuring out goals and then giving the DM some time to sketch out what is necessary and design an adventure... I don't see it. Getting new and casual players to actually play is what is most important, IMO, and this is best done by already having things in place for them to interact with. Again this is about new and/or casual DM's not experienced or invested players.

I agree with the comment about getting players playing as soon as possible. It might actually be better to have completely new players start with pregens. Get right into the action. After they all have an idea of play and want to start their own campaigns, then all this advice would be better used.

Even after players have played a few games, getting them playing as soon as possible is a good idea. Taken from the example above, Players A, B, and C create characters that fit a campy action adventure story with tombraider characters, filling in a little bit of details about their character's backstories to form a cohesive group that fulfills these goals and themes. Some aspects of the world are sketched out this way. Not much beyond what most campaigns do, just that the players can help set the stage for the campaign. Meanwhile, the DM takes an encounter and reskins it to fit the theme and goals, as well as the characters. Minimal improv. Just maybe a couple of combat encounters and a social or other RP encounter. Feel free to thoroughly rip off a book, movie, or play. This all should take less than an hour, especially in more rules light systems. Then you play through the first few encounters. People are excited, the game gets going, and the DM has gotten a great clue as to what sort of campaign he should focus on creating. He then has lots to go off of for preping the next session. This should take no more than the usual time for creating characters.

Letting goals and theme emerge from play holds to possibility of creating a game that some players would not be interested in. Many of the campaigns that I created using world building have fallen prey to player apathy. I would rather communicate about it before I put any work into it.

I think perhaps you are confused about what the inside-out method has you detail in worldbuilding. It exspressly advises you to create only what is necessary for play. You seem to be hung up on the fact that it tells you to guesstimate what may be necessary for play as opposed to sitting down for hours with new players to construct only what is necessary... I don't see your method as well suited to new or casual players.

No need for hours with the players to prep. A very short time is fine.

The thing is, the inside out method tells you to create a world, even if you are starting from where the game starts. It is definitely a snowballing method, but it doesn't say that the adventure is the most important part. It says campaigns are made of adventures and they need a world. They don't. They need an adventure. Something for the characters to do. World is not necessary.

(A) "good" campaign is a purely subjective thing and while adventures are definitely necessary to have a campaign period... adventures, even "good" ones (however we choose to judge them) will not create a "good" campaign for a player who wants to explore a world as opposed to go on adventure after adventure.

That is where defining goals and deciding on themes comes in. Adventures can be created that address the goal and themes of "exploration". Movies do it all the time. There is no world outside of the movie. It is self contained. But the goals and themes of exploration can happen in a movie.

I think that if one were to clarify and set goals for play, decide on themes, create characters that are able to address these goals and themes, and then the DM creates a plot (Adventure, even if the themes are of exploration), we would be more likely to get the games that all of the players including the DM want, and with the minimum prep time for everyone. By focusing on what the game will be like and what the players and the characters DO instead of where they ARE, you end up with a greater likelihood of good games.

It has drastically increased my enjoyment of my games, and has resulted in fewer failed campaigns for me. Everyone is different, but my experiences have definitely been positive.

 

[Beginning of the End]

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.

There are three ways to accomplish this:

(1) Purchased scenarios.

(2) Procedurally generated content. (Random monsters, random dungeons.)

(3) Improv.

The first is pretty well covered. The second is effective for some things, but generally ineffective at generating entire scenarios (since the resulting scenarios are generally incoherent and unsatisfying).

The third seems to be what you're aiming for, but the distinction between pre-prep and improv in terms of output is almost nonexistent if you're doing your pre-prep right. The only real difference is that improv requires you to come up with those answers on-demand and on-the-fly, whereas pre-prep allows you to take time and make the decisions with careful consideration.

I think the reality at most gaming tables is a mixture of all three: Published scenarios are supplements with procedurally-generated content (which is improved and made coherent through on-the-spot improv).

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.

This, BTW, is why Keep on the Borderlands was such a great introductory module to package into the Basic Set. You could grab that module and play every day for a week before "exhausting" the material.

And since the early editions of the game had comprehensive rules for restocking a dungeon with procedurally-generated content, it would take you about five minutes to restock the "exhausted" Caves of Chaos and go back in.

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.

Even professional improv actors use pre-planned scenarios. People who can just whip out interesting and entertaining material without any kind of pre-prepared structure are extremely rare.

Making D&D rely on the presence of such a person at the gaming table will make the game about as "accessible" as publishing a boardgame with a blank board on the supposition that someone at the table will be able to whip up an entertaining boardgame on-the-spot.

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.

Your definition of "world building" appears to be "whatever doesn't get used or seen by the players". Others are pointing out that what the players "use or see" is often difficult to predict and sometimes mutually exclusive: If the players choose route A instead of route B, is all the work I did on route B suddenly "world building" that I shouldn't have been doing? And, conversely, if they choose route B instead of route A, is all the work I did on route A something I shouldn't have been doing?

Perhaps we can narrow in on this by looking at a very specific example.

(1) The entire adventure/camapign is going to be set in the Inn of the Good Hearth.

(2) Now, I'm designing the Inn of the Good Hearth and I include:

- Floorplan and location key
- Detailed NPC write-ups on all staff and guests
- An inventory of the wines in the cellar
- The weekly menu
- A history of the inn

At what point did I move into the "bad advice" you allude to?

It says campaigns are made of adventures and they need a world. They don't. They need an adventure. Something for the characters to do. World is not necessary.

In practice, I don't see the distinction.

The Inn of the Good Hearth? Part of the world.

The dungeon below the Inn of the Good Hearth? Part of the world.

The village in which the Inn of the Good Hearth is located? Part of the world.

The roads leading out of the village? Part of the world.

The goblin-infested woods through which the North Road runs? Part of the world.

The city to the north of the goblin-infested woods? Part of the world.

The kingdom of which the city is the capital? Part of the world.

Is the capital irrelevant to the "get rid of the goblins" adventure? Maybe. Unless, of course, the PCs decide to head to the capital to ask the king to send soldiers to the goblin-infested woods.

Is the vilage irrelevant to the "explore the dungeon" adventure? Maybe. Unless, of course, the PCs want to buy supplies.

And so forth.

Everything that makes up an adventure is, in fact, part of the world. When you create that stuff, you're building a world. You're doing it with a specific agenda and methodology, but that doesn't mean it's not world-building.

(And that's not even broaching the subject of what happens when the adventure is, "Explore the world." Or even, as in the style of LOTR, "Get from Point A to Point B by whatever path you can.")

I think that if one were to clarify and set goals for play, decide on themes, create characters that are able to address these goals and themes, and then the DM creates a plot (Adventure, even if the themes are of exploration)...

Don't Prep Plots.

Which may be part of the problem here: To at least some extent, you appear to be railroading and are arguing that the only thing you need are the tracks and the train -- the scenery isn't important. Other people are saying, "Yeah, but what do you do when the players decide to get off the train?"

The question is, apparently, meaningless to you because it would never occur to you that the players might get off the train. (Because it is, after all, a really well-designed train.)

 

[Imaro]

Here is where we disagree. Deciding on goals and themes are not hard, shouldn't take long, and are actually necessary for players to get a consistent and cohesive idea of what the point of the campaign is and what it is about.

In a perfect setup with a perfect world, deciding on goals and themes are not hard... I would even go so far as to say that with an experienced group who has played together for awhile it isn't hard either. But for a group of new players it's akin to asking what type of fantasy or action movies do you like. Sure, there's a possibility everyone will say Lord of the Rings... but there's also the more likely possibility one or two people want a Conan-esque game, two others want LotR and a final wants something akin to the Berserk anime. While casual gamers, in all honesty, probably won't be too concerned with a particular theme except adventure fantasy.

For these reasons I think for a new DM, it's better for him to just decide and ask the players if a theme is acceptable, of course he can tweak it a little but giving this type of wide open question to new or casual players ususally, IMO, results in alot of hem hawwing and accomplishes little for the amount of time it takes.

Player A: "Lets play a light hearted game that is not too serious. I would like something action packed. Maybe something like Indiana Jones, only somewhat campy, and set in the renaissance."
DM: "Cool, like three musketeers meets Indiana Jones, as if it were written by Shakespear?"
Player B: "That sounds great. This means tomb raiding, right?"
Player C: "Tomb raiding and Romance!"
ALL: "No!"
Player A: "Action and camp with tombraiding, no romance!"
ALL: "Great."

Less than 2 minutes, and we have our goals and our themes.

Yes, it does tend to work out like that in a perfect world...I wonder what would happen if this was tried at a D&D gameday, Gen Con or RPGA event game with 5 to 6 players all new, with varied tastes?

I agree with the comment about getting players playing as soon as possible. It might actually be better to have completely new players start with pregens. Get right into the action. After they all have an idea of play and want to start their own campaigns, then all this advice would be better used.

I disagree with the pre-gen suggestion only because I think this can be for many, though not necessarily all, players a major draw to the game... and without it they may miss something that would have perhaps kept them interested in it. Something interesting to do would have quick PC creation and detailed creation... sort of like how 4e's NPC's are created. That way a person could still have ownership in a character without investing an elaborate amount of time. Just a thought though.

Even after players have played a few games, getting them playing as soon as possible is a good idea. Taken from the example above, Players A, B, and C create characters that fit a campy action adventure story with tombraider characters, filling in a little bit of details about their character's backstories to form a cohesive group that fulfills these goals and themes. Some aspects of the world are sketched out this way. Not much beyond what most campaigns do, just that the players can help set the stage for the campaign. Meanwhile, the DM takes an encounter and reskins it to fit the theme and goals, as well as the characters. Minimal improv. Just maybe a couple of combat encounters and a social or other RP encounter. Feel free to thoroughly rip off a book, movie, or play. This all should take less than an hour, especially in more rules light systems. Then you play through the first few encounters. People are excited, the game gets going, and the DM has gotten a great clue as to what sort of campaign he should focus on creating. He then has lots to go off of for preping the next session. This should take no more than the usual time for creating characters.

Emphasis mine...and yet worldbuilding, even if minimal was still necessary. Yes the methodology was perhaps different... but it's still constructing the elements of the world (not the actual adventure) and thus worldbuilding.

Letting goals and theme emerge from play holds to possibility of creating a game that some players would not be interested in. Many of the campaigns that I created using world building have fallen prey to player apathy. I would rather communicate about it before I put any work into it.

No need for hours with the players to prep. A very short time is fine.

Of course, perfect world and all that aside... I think perhaps the player apathy problem is more a failure to communicate period than based on any methodology used for worldbuilding. I would always let my players know my ideas for worlds and gauge there interest in them beforehand, this doesn't mean they have to build them with me though to be interested in them... it also let's me know, if 5 of them say they'd pass... I probably should toss a different idea for the world their way. Honestly most casual players aren't going to want to do anything outside of play the game...that's why they're casual. And new players could easily be frightened off if they aren't sure about commiting or if creating as opposed to exploring isn't there idea of fun.

The thing is, the inside out method tells you to create a world, even if you are starting from where the game starts. It is definitely a snowballing method, but it doesn't say that the adventure is the most important part. It says campaigns are made of adventures and they need a world. They don't. They need an adventure. Something for the characters to do. World is not necessary.

I feel like you haven't actually read the chapter you're talking about, of course I could be wrong. You see I have a few problems with your above statements...

1. It clearly states adventures are the building blocks of campaigns.
2. The book uses "world" in the way you and others have chosen to use
the word "setting" yet even you admit this is necessary for theme and
goal exploration.
3. I feel like 90% or more of this argument is the semantic game of setting
vs. worldbuilding as well as the ignoring of the different types of
"worldbuilding" that are adressed in various rpg's

That is where defining goals and deciding on themes comes in. Adventures can be created that address the goal and themes of "exploration". Movies do it all the time. There is no world outside of the movie. It is self contained. But the goals and themes of exploration can happen in a movie.

And yet even in that movie there are things that have nothing to do with the "adventure"... like the numerous people, buildings,animals, actions, etc.taking place in the background...in fact I would go so far as to say unless done to make a specific point, a movie without these things would be looked at as strange by most viewers. If a movie is set in a city and there are no other people except the protagonist and who he directly interacts with, no buildings except the ones he actually enters, and so on... I would consider it astrange movie. And if, as you say this is all unnecessary why don't film makers save all that money and ignore these inconsequential things?

I think that if one were to clarify and set goals for play, decide on themes, create characters that are able to address these goals and themes, and then the DM creates a plot (Adventure, even if the themes are of exploration), we would be more likely to get the games that all of the players including the DM want, and with the minimum prep time for everyone. By focusing on what the game will be like and what the players and the characters DO instead of where they ARE, you end up with a greater likelihood of good games.

I disagree, I mean I respect you feel this way, but really I don't see people totally new or casual investing in the game like this until they've become more intrigued or less casual about it. YMMV, but I don't think you are new or casual and thus that is why it may work very well for you and your group.

It has drastically increased my enjoyment of my games, and has resulted in fewer failed campaigns for me. Everyone is different, but my experiences have definitely been positive.

In the end I think this is what's most important, however thinking what works best for you and thinking what works best for othersisn't always the same thing, especially when it comes to beginners or casuals versus those experienced in or with the game. YMMV of course.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

The third seems to be what you're aiming for, but the distinction between pre-prep and improv in terms of output is almost nonexistent if you're doing your pre-prep right. The only real difference is that improv requires you to come up with those answers on-demand and on-the-fly, whereas pre-prep allows you to take time and make the decisions with careful consideration.

The other big distinction is that with improv, you don't need to come up with anything extra. Pre-planning gives the advantage of plenty of time to consider, with the drawback of needing that time to consider. Otherwise you might as well have just done it at the table, and ensured that you would use the work that you put into it.

Even professional improv actors use pre-planned scenarios. People who can just whip out interesting and entertaining material without any kind of pre-prepared structure are extremely rare.

I am not advocating structureless games. I am advocating prioritizing what structures that you create, and be careful about what structures that you become wed to. That way lies the railroad.

Your definition of "world building" appears to be "whatever doesn't get used or seen by the players". Others are pointing out that what the players "use or see" is often difficult to predict and sometimes mutually exclusive: If the players choose route A instead of route B, is all the work I did on route B suddenly "world building" that I shouldn't have been doing? And, conversely, if they choose route B instead of route A, is all the work I did on route A something I shouldn't have been doing?

It is not that you shouldn't have done it. It is that you want to avoid doing unnecessary things.

Which may be part of the problem here: To at least some extent, you appear to be railroading and are arguing that the only thing you need are the tracks and the train -- the scenery isn't important. Other people are saying, "Yeah, but what do you do when the players decide to get off the train?"

No railroad. the willingness to improv can eliminate the rails. I advocate not detailing too much, so that you eliminate the rails. Everyone "railroads" to some degree if they prep but not improvise. Having a defined world creates a form of railroad. Your citation about designng "situations" not plot is not bad. I think having an idea of what players want, including goals, theme, and characters, will give you a great idea as to how to address those elements. Maybe you do not prefer the term "plot", and maybe there is a better word, but the idea that you prep in ways that will always directly address as many of those things as possible is sound. Always prep in a way that directly addresses goals of play, themes, and characters, with an aim at creating a cohesive, progressive game. Is that better than "plot"?

The question is, apparently, meaningless to you because it would never occur to you that the players might get off the train. (Because it is, after all, a really well-designed train.)

Now you are just being insulting. I have never advocated an unbranching sequence. Never have I said that adventures should be designed with a structure of A->B->C->END. Creating flexible elements that work in a variety of ways, elements that you seem to prefer to call "situations" instead of plot points, does not imply linearity.

"The villains have escaped on two ships heading towards Tarsis. One of the villains transforms during the voyage into a terrible monster and kills the crew, leaving the ship floating as a derelict outside the coastal waters of Tharsis. At such-and-such a time, the ship will be spotted by the Tharsis navy. The other villains have reached the Temple of Olympus atop Mt. Tharsis and assumed cover identities."

This is fine design, as long as the goals of play, themes of play, and characters involved in play are addressed by this "scenario". I will assume that all of these things are addresed. This is basically what I mean when I say "plot". Notice that there was only setting building. All of the elements are directed at the PCs. None are likely to be unused, unless the PCs skip things or ingore the prep entirely. This is likely a breach of social contract.

(L)et's look at what we need to design this same adventure as a situation:

(1) The PCs have to pursue the villains. (This is the hook into the entire scenario. It's a potential failure point shared by all scenarios. If the PCs aren't interested in going to the red dragon's lair, it doesn't matter how you prep the lair.)

Sure.

(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.

(3) You need to design the derelict ship.

(4) You need to design the Temple of Olympus.

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

(5) You need to stat up the Tharsis navy, the villains, and (possibly) the survivor.

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.

(6) There needs to be a way for the PCs to know the villains are hiding out in the Temple of Olympus. (In the plot-based design, this is one of the failure points: They either question the survivor or they have no way of knowing where to go next. In situation-based design, you would use the Three Clue Rule and figure out two additional methods by which the PCs could reach this conclusion. This can be as simple as making a Gather Information check in Tharsis and/or questioning the captain/crew of the ship the villains took.)

Having multiple ways that the PCs might know how to progress the game has nothing to do with world building. It is aimed directly at the PCs, allowing them to navigate the "situation/plot". There is nowhere that this contradicts what has been said about creating adventures and not creating worlds. The only advice that I see in the article that is not congruent with how I do things is in his priorities for prep. Stating out the navy is a waste of time. STating out the survivor is a wast of time. Designing the Temple and the ship are mostly a waste of time. Planning for there to BE a Temple, a ship, a survivor, and a navy should be suficient. If the players decide to completely abandon what they set out to do then you can improvise.

 

[Scribble]

And yet even in that movie there are things that have nothing to do with the "adventure"... like the numerous people, buildings,animals, actions, etc.taking place in the background...in fact I would go so far as to say unless done to make a specific point, a movie without these things would be looked at as strange by most viewers. If a movie is set in a city and there are no other people except the protagonist and who he directly interacts with, no buildings except the ones he actually enters, and so on... I would consider it astrange movie. And if, as you say this is all unnecessary why don't film makers save all that money and ignore these inconsequential things?

I think you're creating an argument that doesn't exist.

I don't think anyone is advocating a game where the characters walk into the city and NOTHING exists but their characters and the villain. That's pretty silly.

But to use your movie example, they kind of do.

A film script will only barely mention background cast if at all with only a brief description. Their look and what they're actually doing only becomes relevant later (at the table so to speak) when they get put in by the art department and director.

When I used to do "background" work there was a director who just basically ad-hoced everything that we were "doing" in the scne. "You talk to that girl, you walk past the camera after the hero says "chicken feet" you sit on this stump here and pretend to be drawing in the sand... etc"

To me this is synonimous with the DM just ad-libbing a typical city scene at the table.

DM: You walk into a crowded city, the noise of the day creating a loud cacaphony of sound, the smell of daily life in a big city almost overwhelming.

And so on from there based on whether the players want more info or not.

 

[rounser]

there apparently was a disconnect with Hussar and rounser when it came to how I was defining worldbuilding, when in fact I felt it was they who reclassified and renamed things

No Imaro, it is you who consistently cites stuff usually found in adventures (e.g. encounters, which aren't found in worldbuilding outside of the Wilderlands or maybe a rare book like 2E's Shadowdale book in the FR boxed set, and the exceptions prove the rule) as "worldbuilding."

Your entire argument is easily refuted by the fact that adventure paths can be converted between settings with about a page of notes. That's how irrelevant to actual play worldbuilding can be! Cue you attacking the nature of adventure paths as a style of game you don't like, but that's just a distraction.

 

[Imaro]

No Imaro, it is you who consistently cites stuff usually found in adventures (e.g. encounters, which aren't found in worldbuilding outside of the Wilderlands or maybe a rare book like 2E's Shadowdale book in the FR boxed set, and the exceptions prove the rule) as "worldbuilding."

Good play there rounser, citing encounters instead of the numerous other things such as NPC's, village next to a dungeon, an inn to meet in, etc. that you claim to all fall under "setting"... and again I see no explanation of what exactly "setting" when used by you means...That's it, keep attacking my arguments yet never solidifying, clarifying or explaining yur own stance in a clear and concise way so that real debate can take place. If you need an example jut look at PrecociousApprentice, he actually explained what "setting" was to him in a clear and concise manner... when are you going to step upand do the same?

Your entire argument is easily refuted by the fact that adventure paths can be converted between settings with about a page of notes. That's how irrelevant to actual play worldbuilding can be! Cue you attacking the nature of adventure paths as a style of game you don't like, but that's just a distraction.

Yet there is still conversion necessary based upon the world an adventure path takes place in, am I right or wrong... if you're playing in the Forgotten Realms...referencing Golarion confuses your players and causes the game to be worse. If the AP is set in a city and you describe it as taking place in a forest there's going to be problems... if there's a village next to the dungeon but you decide to instead place a hermit's shack there...again problems may arise or the feel and nature of the AP could change, of course none of these things have to be actual adventure sites to affect the overall campaign. In essence, to me, your argument is akin to saying an actual adventure isn't necessary to play the game... as long as you have a couple of encounters, you'd be perfectly right...but I already said neither of things were "necessary" to play D&D.

Again if you were actually reading and trying to comprehend what I posted instead of just attacking you would see I don't believe worldbuilding or plot is necessary. Also you would have read where I stated the type of campaign I build is dependent upon what me and my players want... so no AP's are just fine with me if that's what I and my group want. So try again with the deflection and hyperbole please.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Imaro, I would like to address the statement you made about the type of communication that I outlined above only happening in a perfect world. I think that saying that it only happens in a perfect world is a disservice to gamers. I think that it not only happens, but it can easily happen more, as long as players are taught that this is a good way to do things.

Deciding on theme can be as simple as citing several movies that you want to emulate. Goals could be as simple as "Lets see where this takes us. We will try to game once a week until the semester ends. Nothing too serious. This isn;t the great american screanplay." It doesn't have to be complicated. Knowing what to expect at the outset is a good thing. I run a lot of one shots. Letting people know this is a good idea.

You are right that the players do not have to be given as much power as I have implied. This does not mean that the DM shouldn't think about these things, and tell the players. I have run a few PbP games that have been one shots. For these, I have told players "Here is my goal, here are the themes." Sometimes I give some pregens, sometimes I give a set of character creation instructions on how to create characters that fit the goals and themes. This has taken a lot of power away from the players, but it has gotten everyone on board as to what the goals and themes are, and has enhanced consistency of the plot and characters. The same thing can happen in con games.

In the end, the real goal is to know what the action and play elements are going to be like. Then only create for these things. You seem hesitent to call this setting creation, but I would say that it is drastically different than what happens with most worldbuilding, even the inside out method. The usual format goes like this.

GM gets an idea, designs either inside out or outside in. Gets the design to a point where he feels comfortable. He may or may not create an adventure at this time.

Then the GM pitches the idea to the players. The players are expected to learn the world well enough to create characters that fit into it. The players are expected to create motives for their characters consistent with the world that the DM has created.

Play begins, and the DM has to figure out how to motivate the characters, and the players have to figure out what the GM has prepared that wil be the most fun for everyone.

I think that a better model would be to figure out what you want to accomplish, design the characters so that they will accomplish this, and then have the DM build the adventures with the decided on fun elements and the estavblished characters in mind. Don't just hope that fun sill emerge from play. Specifically design for fun. I think that is comes down to the most efficient prioritization strategy. Establish the goals, create the things that are most important first (the characters), then create the next most important things with these characters in mind (what the characters will do/be faced with) and fill in the details from there.

Characters->Conflict->Background.

If you don't like this, another way is

Conflict->Characters->Background

Either way, background is not nearly as important as characters and conflict.

As a last comment, these pieces of advice are not necessarily meant for beginning players. They are meant for beginning DMs. Just because you are a new DM doesn't mean that you are new to gaming. Focusing on adventures is the best thing new, and possibly most, DMs can do. It is often easier to be successful at adventure writing than it is to be successful at worldbuilding, and success begets success.