The Art and Science of Worldbuilding For Gameplay [+]

[prabe]

You should expect a lot of these types of answers because the title is "worldbuilding-for-gameplay".

Plausibly, but I think a lot of novelists who world-build end up doing something similar. Define what you need, if/when/as you need it.

 

[Aldarc]

This feels like "campaign design" more than it does "world building."

You may feel that way, but I feel differently.

WotC, for example, intentionally avoided coming up with any canonical answers for the Mourning and other mysteries in Eberron. Likewise WotC designed the World Axis setting so that it would fill the lives of players with adventure. Likewise "don't overdesign" comes from common pitfalls that I have seen with my past GMs who over-designed the worlds they built. Stonetop likewise was deliberately designed as a setting with blanks or places for players to provide their own answers. Those were world-building choices.

I don't know what else to tell you, but this is the art of world-building to me.

 

[Reynard]

You absolutely can design a setting that way. I have all sorts of undefined spaces (literal and metaphorical) in my world, specifically so I can define them if and when I need to, as they become at least potentially relevant.

You should expect a lot of these types of answers because the title is "worldbuilding-for-gameplay".

Sure, but there is a (admittedly fuzzy) line between building empty space into the world, and simply not world building.

I think my OP makes it pretty clear that I am talking about detailed world building and how doing that detailed world building can support gameplay, rather than doing the kind of shallow and immediate world building that is reactive to player choices and input. And note that that is what I usually do. I am not a big world builder most of the time. I create a frame on which I can hang some hooks and then improv the rest during play. But that isn't what I am talking about here.

 

[Reynard]

You may feel that way, but I feel differently.

WotC, for example, intentionally avoided coming up with any canonical answers for the Mourning and other mysteries in Eberron. Those were world-building choices. Likewise "don't overdesign" comes from common pitfalls that I have seen with my past GMs who over-designed the worlds they built. Stonetop likewise was deliberately designed as a setting with blanks or places for players to provide their own answers.

I don't know what to tell you, but this is the art of world-building to me.

The Mourning is the exception rather than the rule in Eberron. it is a highly detailed setting, and that detail manages to inspire adventure and campaign design by the GM on every page and in every paragraph. That is what I am talking about: the detail being the tool.

 

[prabe]

Sure, but there is a (admittedly fuzzy) line between building empty space into the world, and simply not world building.

I think my OP makes it pretty clear that I am talking about detailed world building and how doing that detailed world building can support gameplay, rather than doing the kind of shallow and immediate world building that is reactive to player choices and input. And note that that is what I usually do. I am not a big world builder most of the time. I create a frame on which I can hang some hooks and then improv the rest during play. But that isn't what I am talking about here.

I think what some of us are saying, here, is that A) detailed world-building that never enters play doesn't support play, and B) "reactive" or "immediate" world-building isn't inherently shallow.

 

[Aldarc]

The Mourning is the exception rather than the rule in Eberron. it is a highly detailed setting, and that detail manages to inspire adventure and campaign design by the GM on every page and in every paragraph. That is what I am talking about: the detail being the tool.

It's not just the Mourning. As I said, Eberron was deliberately created with a number of mysteries that don't actually have canonical answers. The fact that it's a detailed setting doesn't disprove this fact.

 

[Reynard]

I think what some of us are saying, here, is that A) detailed world-building that never enters play doesn't support play,

I disagree, because a) you don't know what will or won't enter play unless you are restricting your players' choices, and b) detailed world building is inspirational.

and B) "reactive" or "immediate" world-building isn't inherently shallow.

I think it is definitionally so, from long and extensive experience. You can, of course, go back and add depth and complexity but that is world building to support gameplay.

 

[Reynard]

It's not just the Mourning. As I said, Eberron was delibately created with a number of mysteries that don't actually have canonical answers. The fact that it's a detailed setting doesn't disprove this fact.

Yes, there are things in the world of Eberron intended for the GM to define in his own campaign(s). These things are informed and supported by a mountain of detailed worldbuilding -- the subject of this + thread.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, there are things in the world of Eberron intended for the GM to define in his own campaign(s). These things are informed and supported by a mountain of detailed worldbuilding -- the subject of this + thread.

IMHO, it's still part of world-building choices. But if you want to be disimissive of my + answers about world-building in your + thread, then please be my guest. I'll see myself out.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Do you create a fresh world for every campaign?

Not necessarily, no. It depends on what we're collectively looking for from the new campaign and what world would suit it.

Generally speaking, I don't design my whole world prior to play, so chances are if I'm using the same setting for more than one campaign, I can use a previously unseen area. Other times, I may use an established setting, and tweak it to our needs.

I honestly think that the key to focusing on playability is to actively not decide all details ahead of time. Which seems kind of counterintuitive when it comes to the topic of worldbuilding, but I think it's very true.