Does the world exist for the PCs?

HJFudge said:

No formula, no, but there are good world building techniques and there are bad worldbuilding techniques. Even more important, there are Better worldbuilding techniques and worse ones. Whilst I also havent seen any codified guide to this, I think its not impossible that one exists or could exists.

There are ways to create a world that lead to consistently more interesting ways to interact for the players and their characters. This of course may not be your goal as a DM. Perhaps you have a strictly narrative experience you want to provide where you are the storyteller and the players simply play the role you set out for them to. This is fine, those games are super fun for certain types. However, for those looking for a more sandbox style game or who want to let the players create the story? There are techniques out there that help build a world that encourages and supports that in a better way than other techniques.

I guess I said all that to say this: Building a world specifically for the players characters leads to worlds that seem...off. That are less interesting to interact with. It creates a dissonance and disruptive feel where the players suddenly begin to stop thinking they exist in a real place, but more some odd illusion/matrix thing. It just severely lowers believability, and I'd argue that if you want to have a believable world, it CANNOT be built for the specific PCs.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Or, from a non-D&D game standpoint, at least. D&D has no mechanics for challenging the kind of building that focuses entirely on the PC. It is a system that requires some form of external to PC design, and so it fights against any real attempt to build a world around the PCs. This is where your point of feeling 'off' comes from -- the system itself fights against this. There are, however, a number of systems that do build around PC very well, and this is because each of them has a system that challenges these build points as part of play and, while still focusing on the PC, allows such things to become positive or negative according to how those challenges go for the PCs. This can, if employed properly (which isn't super easy, probably why most of these games are a bit niche), create a rich and detailed tapestry of a world, based entirely on the PCs, without feeling hollow, thin, or off. These systems work to reinforce this in ways D&D cannot.

That's not a knock on D&D, by the way. Game systems cannot do everything -- they're built to do the thing they do. It's why you can't play chess with the rules for Texas hold-em.

To me the PCs are the lens, its thru them that the world is revealed and parts of it come into focus. That world needs to 9nvioudly have scope and depth beyond the focus of that image but that's going to be blurry scenery until it gets the focus.

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]

So, when you say "build around the PC", what are you actually referring to? That's the kind of phrase that could mean a lot of different things depending on who's talking.

Ovinomancer said:

I disagree. Or, from a non-D&D game standpoint, at least. D&D has no mechanics for challenging the kind of building that focuses entirely on the PC. It is a system that requires some form of external to PC design, and so it fights against any real attempt to build a world around the PCs. This is where your point of feeling 'off' comes from -- the system itself fights against this. There are, however, a number of systems that do build around PC very well, and this is because each of them has a system that challenges these build points as part of play and, while still focusing on the PC, allows such things to become positive or negative according to how those challenges go for the PCs. This can, if employed properly (which isn't super easy, probably why most of these games are a bit niche), create a rich and detailed tapestry of a world, based entirely on the PCs, without feeling hollow, thin, or off. These systems work to reinforce this in ways D&D cannot.

That's not a knock on D&D, by the way. Game systems cannot do everything -- they're built to do the thing they do. It's why you can't play chess with the rules for Texas hold-em.

Click to expand...

I cannot begin to claim I've played most systems out there, so maybe there is a game system that creating the world for the PCs works better with. I feel that would have to be baked into the system itself with robust rules that not only support that style of worldbuilding but actually expect it.

Unless a system has a set of rules in place for that, however, I stand by my original statement

HJFudge said:

I cannot begin to claim I've played most systems out there, so maybe there is a game system that creating the world for the PCs works better with. I feel that would have to be baked into the system itself with robust rules that not only support that style of worldbuilding but actually expect it.

Unless a system has a set of rules in place for that, however, I stand by my original statement

Click to expand...

Stand where you feel you must, but you are wrong. There are a lot of examples that contradict your belief.

And, btw - Critical Role was a standard D&D campaign before it was a show, and Mercer has noted that - for the most part - his deisgn philiosophy for the campaign is substantially the same.

I've logged at least 10K hours playing RPGs and easily another 15K preparing for them/message boarding/etc... Your view that a game tailored to a party of PCs where the setting is tailored to those PCs can't be amazingly good and is inherently inferior to a world created agnostic to the existence of those PCs for the purpose of creating a great game.... well it just does not add up.

D&D is an RPG. A Role Playing Game. Characters play a role in a story. The game is at its best when the story is the best - and the best stories are not ones in which the main characters don't fit into the story - they're best when the PCs have stakes in the story and PERSONAL motivations. This is incredibly true in RPGs.

There's some philosphical rhetoric here I'm just not feeling. The game world isnt created for the PCs, the campaign is created for the PCs. They aren't the same thing. And even the campaign probably shouldn't be cteated for specific PCs, but rather a generic group. How generic is a design decision.

What we are seeing here is a category mistake. Just because a particular campaign doesn't support any random group of PCs doesn't mean it's tailored for 4 or 5 specific PCs. Its not that binary. Generally though, the campaign is designed before the chatavters are rolled up. The PCs can can gave stakes and agency without bespoke campaign design.

jgsugden said:

Stand where you feel you must, but you are wrong. There are a lot of examples that contradict your belief.

And, btw - Critical Role was a standard D&D campaign before it was a show, and Mercer has noted that - for the most part - his deisgn philiosophy for the campaign is substntially the same.

I've logged at least 10K hours playing RPGs and easily another 15K preparing for them/message boarding/etc... Your view that a game tailored to a party of PCs where the setting is tailored to those PCs can't be amazingly good and is inherently inferior to a world created agnostic to the existence of those PCs for purposes of creating a great game.... well it just does not add up.

D&D is an RPG. A Role Playing Game. Characters play a role in a story. The game is at its best when the stry is the best - and the best stories are not ones in which the main characters don't fit into the stroy - they're best when the PCs have stakes in the story and PERSONAL motivations. This is incredibly true in PRGs.

Click to expand...

A properly crafted world is one that allows for the players to decide what their stakes are, decide what their motivations are, rather than some DM telling them what they must be. Which, when the DM creates the world centered around the PCs, it 'locks in' the motivation. Theres no room to move, and that really sucks if what the DM *thinks* the players want for their character doesn't end up being what they actually want.

When the world is crafted with places to interact and allows the players to choose where and how to engage with it, it becomes the PLAYERS story. Yes, it might not be the story you wanted to tell...but it will definitely be the story the PCs want to tell...because rather than following the script given to them, they are able to create their own. It is a matter of choice and a world which does not allow the choice for a character to do anything or be anything other than what he wanted to do and be at the start when he created his character is a poor one. It has no bones, it has no depth, it lacks in ability to interact with. A world which is properly built before the players set foot in it leaves room for them to move and find their place within it, with much more depth and the ability for them to carve their own meaning into things.

Your way cannot do this, not nearly as well. Because *you* are deciding what the player characters want and what they want to do. YOU. Not them.

Allow your players a chance to have a say. You will find it 100x better than your 'thousands of hours' you've done till now. Simply because you can't do the math don't mean it doesnt add up

To take people to a more relatable view of this topic.

DM buys a campaign setting. It is a desert wasteland like Athas/Dark Sun filled with brutal NPCs and constant danger. It has no connection to the Feywild and thus has withered. He studies it and loves it. He is an expert on every page on the setting and expands it to create his own unique touches. He is prepared with dozens of story hooks, adventure locations and great CHARACTER AGNOSTIC storylines.

Then he finds his players.

Player 1 wants to play a Tempest Cleric that was a former pirate.

Player 2 wants to play a Fey Pact Warlock Firbolg.

Player 3 wants to play a Dwarven Barbarian.

Two of those three PCs do not fit into the setting well.

Do you tell the players, "No, you can't play that PC. It doesn't fit into my game?" Is telling a player "No" unnecessarily likely to result in the best experience for the player?

Do you have them be from far away and just ignore their background and motivations? Is that exciting? Or is that going to leave the players feeling like the DM is playing with himself and the PCs are just there to watch... If they're not interwoven into the story meaningfully, they're meaningless. For an example of stock adventures where this is a problem see the old Dark Sun modules.

Or, do you adjust your world to give these PCs a reason to be there. Do you find a place where a sailor might come from and give this PC a reson to travel to this wasteland. Do you add a storyline about a weak connecion to the Feywild that allowd the Feypact Warlock to get his powers and give him motivations to return the world to a lush place...

The DMG has chapters that far too few DMs read on world building and running a campaign. There are many great resources online for world building and finding ways to make the play experience for your characters legendary. I don't care if you're new to the game or, like me, you've played in 5 different decades... There is always more to be learned by looking at other DMs, looking at their advice, and trying to incorporate your players deeper into the game. You'll find that a lot of DMs note that the biggest improvement they made in their games was when they transitioned from making a game FOR the players to making a game WITH the players.

For the game I run, I created a realm. In this realm are various people and places, some with problems some without. I let my players decide for themselves who they interacted with and where they went. There were quests presented, some where ignored, some accepted, some the players went against the giver. My players ended up creating their own goals/plots, and from here the story of the characters has unfold.

HJFudge said:

...

Allow your players a chance to have a say. You will find it 100x better than your 'thousands of hours' you've done till now. Simply because you can't do the math don't mean it doesnt add up

Click to expand...

Your rgument makes no sense. By crafting a world with the players, around the players desires, I'm limiting their involvement .. and your creation of a world agnostic to the characters is somehow allowing them to be involved in the world more?