The Art and Science of Worldbuilding For Gameplay [+]

[prabe]

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.

I don't know what my players are interested in before they express interest. I don't know where they are going until they go there. None of that comports with "restricting [my] players' choices," IME. And if the GM builds out a part of the world the PCs never even know about I don't see how that can possibly be said to "support play."

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.

Apparently we have both have extensive experience and have different conclusions here. It's entirely possible as a GM to react to the players--and to frame new situations--in ways that are consistent with what's gone before. While it might be accurate to call such in-the-moment stuff "worldbuilding." it was not what I took your OP to be about--that seemed to be entirely about before (or at least out of) play stuff.

 

[Reynard]

I don't know what my players are interested in before they express interest. I don't know where they are going until they go there. None of that comports with "restricting [my] players' choices," IME. And if the GM builds out a part of the world the PCs never even know about I don't see how that can possibly be said to "support play."

It potentially supports play because they might go there, and if it exists, they can go there.

Apparently we have both have extensive experience and have different conclusions here. It's entirely possible as a GM to react to the players--and to frame new situations--in ways that are consistent with what's gone before. While it might be accurate to call such in-the-moment stuff "worldbuilding." it was not what I took your OP to be about--that seemed to be entirely about before (or at least out of) play stuff.

Note that I was specifically talking about depth, which you can't have if you invent something on the fly by definition. That isn't to say it can't be fun and cool and appropriate and valuable, and it is still worldbuilding in the broad sense.

 

[Reynard]

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.

While I like empty spaces and improvisational invention are good things, I think it's a little far to declare they are "the key" to playability. That excludes a prep-focused form of GMing that is both common and valid.

If I know a lot about the region the game takes place in, including its cultures and legends and flora and fauna and history, it makes the job of improvising easier when the players make unexpected choices. And if I am trying to give the players a consistent, deep world as part of the experience, that pre-existing detail is going to be essential to good improv.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Note that I was specifically talking about depth, which you can't have if you invent something on the fly by definition. That isn't to say it can't be fun and cool and appropriate and valuable, and it is still worldbuilding in the broad sense.

I don’t think that time = depth in this way. I’ve done plenty of worldbuilding ahead of play, and the ideas I come up with are often just as spontaneous as those I come up with in play.

 

[prabe]

It potentially supports play because they might go there, and if it exists, they can go there.

Note that I was specifically talking about depth, which you can't have if you invent something on the fly by definition. That isn't to say it can't be fun and cool and appropriate and valuable, and it is still worldbuilding in the broad sense.

If I have a part of my setting that I know exists, but I don't want the players to go there--say, because I don't feel capable of running Fantasy Mesoamerica in a way that fits with D&D's mechanics and themes and is respectful of the cultures--how does it support play in my setting that it exists, and how would it further support play if I were to detail it?

I think I flat disagree with your contention that you can't have depth if you invent on the fly. There are novelists who free-write, after all, and some of them manage plenty of depth. I've found the combination of some pre-established stuff and some improvised stuff has worked well in the campaigns I've run--I suspect you'd say all the depth has come from the stuff pre-established, and I'd tell you that hasn't particularly been the case.

 

[Reynard]

If I have a part of my setting that I know exists, but I don't want the players to go there--say, because I don't feel capable of running Fantasy Mesoamerica in a way that fits with D&D's mechanics and themes and is respectful of the cultures--how does it support play in my setting that it exists, and how would it further support play if I were to detail it?

Why is it part of your world?

I think I flat disagree with your contention that you can't have depth if you invent on the fly. There are novelists who free-write, after all, and some of them manage plenty of depth. I've found the combination of some pre-established stuff and some improvised stuff has worked well in the campaigns I've run--I suspect you'd say all the depth has come from the stuff pre-established, and I'd tell you that hasn't particularly been the case.

Maybe we are using different definitions of "depth."

 

[prabe]

Why is it part of your world?

Maybe we are using different definitions of "depth."

It's part of my world because having Fake Europe being the only culture on the world seemed like a worse wrong than having cultures I didn't want to run.

I'm using "depth" in the sense of having layers. I've had things matter tens or scores--or in at least one case at least a hundred--sessions after coming up. And had things the PCs could drill down into to their hearts' content. How are you using it?

 

[hawkeyefan]

While I like empty spaces and improvisational invention are good things, I think it's a little far to declare they are "the key" to playability. That excludes a prep-focused form of GMing that is both common and valid.

Knowing what to decide ahead of time and what not to seems pretty key to me. I’m not excluding any kind of GMing by saying that, except perhaps the most extreme prep-heavy worldbuilding of the sort that I’d say is pretty much impossible.

If I know a lot about the region the game takes place in, including its cultures and legends and flora and fauna and history, it makes the job of improvising easier when the players make unexpected choices. And if I am trying to give the players a consistent, deep world as part of the experience, that pre-existing detail is going to be essential to good improv.

This doesn’t contradict anything I said. I talked about holding off on finalizing my prep until I’d involved the players.

 

[Reynard]

It's part of my world because having Fake Europe being the only culture on the world seemed like a worse wrong than having cultures I didn't want to run.

Right, because it informs other components that the PCs will interact with. Like you can't run an Age of Sail campaign without knowing how colonialism informs European society even if you don't actually want to play colonialism. That makes sense.

I'm using "depth" in the sense of having layers. I've had things matter tens or scores--or in at least one case at least a hundred--sessions after coming up. And had things the PCs could drill down into to their hearts' content. How are you using it?

What I mean when I say improv elements necessarily lack depth on introduction is that improv is like live development without the benefit of being able to.throw out the dross that always come with development. If you create a NPC in play, they are necessarily lightly sketched (aka lacking depth) at first. If the PCs immediately pursue more information at the moment, you have to make up additional details, adding depth, but you are likely to be stuck with some details that, being the first thing you thought of, might not be great. If, however, the players plan on meeting again with that NPC in a later session, you have the opportunity to add depth with the benefit of muling things over, thinking things through, talking to a fellow GM, looking back in your notes in order to better tie the character to established lore, etc.

 

[overgeeked]

What do you think about world building toward gameplay?

I think it's the best version of worldbuilding. I see absolutely no point in wasting time on elements of the world the players will never encounter. Is it possible they will encounter something soon? Then start making a rough sketch of that thing. Is it unlikely that they will ever encounter something? Then don't waste time on it.

What are the techniques a world builder can use to build toward gameplay, and what should be avoided?

Don't prep anything that's not interactive. The best example is the Great Wheel and the various planes that instantly kill the PCs. Avoid that. Better to create something like the Elemental Chaos of 4E. That's playable. I would seriously suggest anyone interested in worldbuilding with an eye towards playability take a long, hard look at 4E's cosmology and points of light setting, and Sly Flourish's Return of the Lazy Dungeon Master.

What happens when a world builder finds they are building more for their own pleasure or for bespoke stories than for gameplay?

The referee tends to lore dump on the players and push the game towards revealing their worldbuilding.

How can they salvage their world?

Yes. As per the common writing advice, "kill your darlings." Anything not directly in front of the PCs doesn't matter. Remove the deep lore. Nothing is true until it appears in game. Set the binders aside and focus on the next session. The broad strokes will survive, probably. The details and minutia will not survive. Be okay with that.

What TTRPG worlds really speak to you from a "built for gameplay" perspective, and which are interesting worlds but fail in the gameplay department?

D&D 4E's points of light setting and the cosmology they built for 4E was literally designed from the ground up with gameplay in mind.

Eberron straddles the line for me. It was originally built for gameplay. The setting is dripping with inspiration and plot hooks. But after almost 20 years there's so much built up and so much of the map filled in that it can be really hard to play in that setting without either ignoring decades of stuff or being boxed in by the lore. But...Eberron also mostly sidesteps that issue by having the start date fixed across editions allowing the referee to move ahead in time and change things as they go. Winding up a world on the brink of war and seeing where it goes based on the factions involved and the PCs' actions is really amazingly fun.

Settings like Middle Earth are the other end of the spectrum. So utterly locked down and filled in that there's effectively no potential left for new adventures.

You need blank spots on the map and in the lore for the PCs to explore for there to be a game to play.

To me, the ultimate in "gameplay first" would be a starting village and a few nearby hexes with points of interest to explore.