Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
And, on hearing it, I equate out to worldbuilding.
Why Worldbuilding is Bad
I agree that every game needs a setting.
I don't think that every game needs the GM to establish elements of setting in advance, independent of the players and often, even typically, unrevealed to the players. Those are features of what is typically/traditionally called "worldbuilding" in RPGing.
A world map isn't essential. I'm running multiple campaigns at the moment that don't have a world map. One has no maps at all. The other, after half-a-dozen setting, had enough worlds visited/mentioned that it was useful to draw up a star map.
When I have maps I show them to the players. They establish a shared sense of setting. They aren't a "puzzle" to be solved.
In the context of this thread, there is no difference between "no myth" and "story now". In this approach to play there is no "the adventure at hand", and hence there is no world building needed to do set up such a thing. Some systems rely on the GM perparing framing in advance (eg DitV) - which is then shared with the players to set things in motion. The minimum that is required to make a game go, however, is PCs with hooks.
hawkeyefan
Legend
What goes on the pc hooks?
Doug McCrae
Legend
Did you see my posts in the other worldbuilding thread about the Dream Game campaign? That was a game where the main drive (I think for all the players, certainly myself and Mark) was finding out what was really going on, or at least learning more. In one of the group discussions near the end of the campaign another of the players, Jamie, talks about how far we still have to go in terms of discovery (and it also gives a good overview of the campaign):
We've got to face up to the fact that we're still floundering in a major way. We just don't have a clue what 'their' objectives are, how they are pursuing those objectives. We don't even know who exactly most of 'them' are. We used to help patients with dream related problems. We used to intrude, find the malignant External, find its Achilles heel and defeat it. Then we'd see a subsequent improvement in the patient's health. The nightmares went away and the patient seemed to find a peace of mind. But with the Fallen it's different. We haven't clearly identified the problems being suffered, never mind the entities causing these problems. And as for why they are doing so or what their Achilles heel might be, we haven't a clue.
It was a game that featured an unusually wide range of elements - the real mundane world of Glasgow in the mid 90s, 'real' occult and paranormal inspired happenings, dream weirdness, superhero-esque action scenes in dreams with lots of bizarre powers flying about, horror scenes (usually in dreams), and group discussions about What's Really Going On. The players would even write essays about What's Really Going On and these are included in the campaign logs.
I don't think this was because we were all lore-seeking players, I think it's because of the sort of game it was and that produced certain behaviour on our part. The GM did ridiculously huge amounts of research and prep for it, which led to all the players taking it very seriously. It was a game that felt real, and also one where there were major obstacles to the unveiling of occult knowledge: the strange, unknowable nature of dreams; the fact that the spirit world (if it existed at all) was beyond our perception; the extreme secrecy of both our antagonists and the 'good guy' organisation we encountered.
Last edited:
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Setting building isn't used and we don't need another term for what we already have. World building.
We don't, so there's no need to invent setting building.
You really shouldn't assume things. As past history between us demonstrates, you're really bad at it. I made no such decision.
So your argument is that everything in the entire world should be available at any city the PCs are in just in case they go look for it?
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
We're discussing why some people like exploration. This wasn't a comparison between the two playstyles.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]
The words we use matter. They shape the ways we think about things and the sort of techniques we use. By insisting that we use the orthodox framing of world building and referring to a game world rather than a setting or a shared fiction in order to participate in this discussion you are insisting that we take a number of assumptions for granted that I for one do not wish to take for granted. Mainly it suggests a permanence and independent existence of the setting and implies that it has intrinsic value outside of the context of the game. If it has an outside existence beyond this shared activity then it must exist somewhere - inside the head of the GM. So then he or she must own it - not a shared thing at all.
It also removes meaningful distinctions between setting design, scenario design, and adventure design. In games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark I view it as the GM's duty to mostly focus on scenario design - creating a compelling situation that prompts players to make decisions for their characters and address it on their own terms. I contrast this with adventure design which is mostly focused on solving or beating the adventure laid out before them.
There's a reason why I prefer to refer to a shared fiction over a game world. A shared fiction implies a play space that we give form to as we play in it and define as we need it. It has no independent existence. It only exists in the moments we are together. It serves play. Not the other way around. We follow it and play in it because it has value here and now.
Here's the important bit though: I would never expect you to adopt my terminology just to engage with me. You can talk in terms of world building and game worlds. I will not. What matters is that we both understand what the other means.
The words we use matter. They shape the ways we think about things and the sort of techniques we use. By insisting that we use the orthodox framing of world building and referring to a game world rather than a setting or a shared fiction in order to participate in this discussion you are insisting that we take a number of assumptions for granted that I for one do not wish to take for granted. Mainly it suggests a permanence and independent existence of the setting and implies that it has intrinsic value outside of the context of the game. If it has an outside existence beyond this shared activity then it must exist somewhere - inside the head of the GM. So then he or she must own it - not a shared thing at all.
It also removes meaningful distinctions between setting design, scenario design, and adventure design. In games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark I view it as the GM's duty to mostly focus on scenario design - creating a compelling situation that prompts players to make decisions for their characters and address it on their own terms. I contrast this with adventure design which is mostly focused on solving or beating the adventure laid out before them.
There's a reason why I prefer to refer to a shared fiction over a game world. A shared fiction implies a play space that we give form to as we play in it and define as we need it. It has no independent existence. It only exists in the moments we are together. It serves play. Not the other way around. We follow it and play in it because it has value here and now.
Here's the important bit though: I would never expect you to adopt my terminology just to engage with me. You can talk in terms of world building and game worlds. I will not. What matters is that we both understand what the other means.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
That isn't what I said, though. I said there was no term "setting building", not that world building and setting were the same. World building is the act. Setting is the result. This applies whether you are world building as you go along, or if you prepare it in advance.
I don't agree with this. First, a shared setting can exist in the minds of multiple people outside of the duration of the sharing(game play). Second, I can share something I own, so even if the DM did own it, which I don't agree with, setting can still be a shared thing.
I don't agree that it removes those distinctions. When designing a building, the architect still has to design floors, and arches, and more. Those sub-categories building design still have meaning. The same with scenario design and adventure design. I leave out setting design, because that's the actual world building, with setting being the result.
It has the same independent existence that world design has. It independently exists in the minds of all who share it. Every person can recall at any time what happened and go over things in their heads, not just during game play. I don't need to call a Banana Split shared ice cream in order to understand that it is a shared desert.
I have conversations with people who use shared fiction all the time. I understand that it means the same thing as my terminology does. You call it shared fiction. I call it a game world. It's the exact same thing.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
While I agree with all of your other points, I cannot agree with you about terminology. If someone wishes to talk about a topic with more specificity than the general term had, then it's on them to highlight the specificity, not redefine the term to be specific to only their meaning. That way llies the exact problem in this thread where most people actually agree but are arguing and argung because of all the different and idiosyncratic definitions of the general term.
If you want to disect out different kinds of prep, that's laudable and interesting. If we can't have a discussion about it because you've chosen to do so by redefining terms to mean different things, then those laudable and interesting things are going to go misunderstood. That's not good.
The bit where you called out a difference between detailing the setting, designing scenarios, and designing adventures (especially the distinction between scenario and adventure) was outstanding! Saying you should be able tobredefine worldbuilding to mean what that wonderful block of distinctions meant completely defeats it, though.
Well, this depends on system, and to a degree that I don't think there's a simple setting-neutral answers.
The version I used for my 4e game (influenced pretty strongly by Burning Wheel) has the PCs establish relationships, goals, loyatlies or similar. The players make them up. Hence, not being GM-authored, they don't fall within what I think is, far and away, the typical thing described as "worldbuilding" in the context of RPGing.
In Cortex+ Heroic (both MHRP and the fantasy hack), the hooks are much more about the character's own development (eg one of the PCs in my vikings game has, as the 10XP "cap" on one of his milestones, something like "When you either take on a group of disciples, or alternatively renounce asceitism and reembrace the ordinary world"). These put a much lighter constraint on setting - which reflects the game's origins as a superhero game, where the heroes have to be able to realise their "arcs" regardless of the madcap situation they find themselves in at the hands of this month's writers.
Similar Threads
