What is worldbuilding for?

hawkeyefan · Feb 9, 2018

So I'm currently reading the RPG "Tales From the Loop". It's an interesting game....very much in the vein of "Stranger Things" and similar fiction, right down to the 80s setting. I think it's a good example of player driven gaming. Each player designs a "Kid" as a character, with an archetype of some sort serving as what we would think of as a character class (Bookworm, Jock, Troublemaker, Popular kid, etc.). When the players make their Kids, they choose certain story elements; each Kid has a Problem, a Drive, a Pride, and an Anchor, all of which contribute to the story. The Problem is essential as the GM is expected to bring the Problem up during play. So if a Kid's problem is "I'm scared of the dark", then the GM will introduce a dark place in which some of the story will take place. And so on.

The game is also interesting because all rolls are made by the players. When a Kid gets into Trouble...the GM can put a kid in Trouble or the players can....they decide what Attribute/Skill to use to get out of Trouble. So the players have a lot of agency. They can come up with creative ways to get out of Trouble, and then steer the action in that way. They basically pick which Atribute/Skill used to get out of a situation, and they have to make a case for it, and the GM decides if they can do so, or if another Attribute/Skill is needed.

Throughout the book, there are many examples of "The GM has final say". On a failed check, very often the GM indicates success with a complication rather than outright failure. This kind of element seems in line with the "indie" approach that is being advocated for in this thread. So the game is by no means shy about Players driving the elements of the story. But neither is the game afraid of the GM using his judgment.

Much of the game comes from the GM. For instance, NPC actions and their success or failure are decided by GM fiat. The Mystery itself (the story or adventure that the players are facing) is designed by the GM, within constraints of the setting. There's an assumed setting, but I can see taking the core mechanics and themes and coming up with a homebrew take on the game.

I think reading through this game I was just struck by how obvious of a middle road it is between Player Driven and GM Driven. It immediately made me think of this thread.

And I think it also touches upon something that I think is core to the discussion. It's in game design. If a game is designed with a Player Driven approach, then of course that is how play will proceed. The mechanics of the game support that style, and indeed, enforce it.

If a game is not designed with such mechanics, then I don't think it means that it is impossible to incorporate Player Driven material, but the game is not actively calling for it, so it may be less likely. The assumed or default mode of play may lean heavily on the GM. But there is nothing stopping a GM from increasing the amount of Player Driven focus s/he allows. In such a game, the GM has to actively get the players to offer material, and then has to actively decide how to use it. There's nothing preventing this, but most of the time, the mechanics don't enforce it.

And I think that's likely the crux of any lingering failure for folks in the discussion to understand the "other side".

Aenghus · Feb 9, 2018

I think a significant proportion of players don't want a decision-heavy game, or want to restrict their decisions making to particular subsets of the whole. Sometimes this results in an increased workload for the GM, who needs to facilitate the type of game desired, and avoid forcing the sort of decisions their players want to avoid on them.

I think a detailed, self-consistent gameworld makes it easier for players to reverse-engineer the GM decision making process. Why is this relevant? Well, it isn't for some people, but in the case of people who care about in-game success, how the referee makes decisions is very relevant. Some referees seem very invested in obfuscating how they make decisions, which I have to admit is mystifying to me. But then I highly value transparency in game systems.

Partially it's because I want to engage meaningfully with game systems. It's also a trust issue, black box GMing makes it easier to use illusionism and gm force behind the scenes. Trust is never absolute, it has to be earned and maintained.

AbdulAlhazred · Feb 10, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
Those have some similarities to the original 9, but some important differences as well. I like these better. I may have some issues with your 6), but largely because I'm not entirely certain what you're driving at. I think that system is a bigger determinate of the use and acceptability of GM force rather than setting elements, but those two do go hand in hand quite often.

I think force/illusionism goes well with heavily pre-generated elements. It provides the GM with both means and motivation. Means in the sense of plot elements which can act as easy controls on PCs or to force the plot along lines the GM desires. Motivation in that a heavily plotted backstory integrated with a detailed setting (or even just the mass of setting details itself) begs to be shown off and elaborated on vs being undone. Few GMs relish spending several weekends of prep time on a town just to have the PCs burn it down in session 1. Instead the fire brigade will prove to have been equipped with a magical water pump, or something. You can light it on fire, but you can't burn it! The essence of illusionism, ones actions and choices simply don't produce predictable effects. Now, this isn't ALWAYS bad, but it can get old sometimes.

I also think there's a lot to say about systems that use grids for combat vs theatre of the mind. It's much easier to wing it, and therefore be fully responsive to player input, in TotM games, but you lose much of the tactical aspects of the grid. Conversely, grid systems need maps, and it's hard to consistently provide interesting maps with tactical aspects on the fly, so those systems reward prep. Once you have a system that rewards prep in some instances, then it has a follow on effect of rewarding more prep so that the prep work already invested becomes relevant. 3.x was really bad about this, as the prep for combat was grueling, and so there was a strong incentive towards using GM force and Illusionism so that generated content was useful.

D&D in general has this feature/bug. The systems you generally espouse don't have this feature/bug. So, I think system has a big impact on what worldbuilding is for.

Now, see, I found the opposite to be true. Playing out combats in 'TotM' meant I had to VERY carefully set everything out, describe it all in detail, etc. This is usually facilitated by pre-generated descriptions, and even artwork. Whereas I can drop a few dungeon tiles or draw a few lines on my Chessex with a wet erase marker about as fast as I can spin out the description in my head.

Frankly, I like to consider many possible encounter locations and opponents ahead of time, but I don't get too detailed about who they are, where they might appear, or exactly what the action will be ahead of time. That way I can come up with some clever tactical situations that might be harder to just whip out on the fly, and still have a pretty unstructured game.

Besides, if I don't focus on too many trivial combats, then the real fights are going to mostly be with 'name' figures, which have probably already been fleshed out to some extent in most cases through play. Stories with significant plot rarely run to "suddenly you find yourself fighting a dragon out of the blue" kinds of things. That dragon will be developed through earlier interactions, knowledge gained in the course of study or recon, etc. It may well be a sometime patron that has now come to a parting of the ways with the PCs!

So, the general situation is likely to be that the location has been developed to some extent already, etc. I'm only fixing tactically relevant details at the time of the fight, and if I know its coming ahead of time I may even do a bit of that before the session. Heck, I might even map out the whole lair, though I've gotten pretty lazy in my old age...

pemerton · Feb 10, 2018

RedShirtNo5.1 said:
I assume that when you pull out your old Greyhawk material and tell them they are in Hardby, you are reading notes to generate the framing

You said "a significant goal of play is for the GM to read stuff from his/her notes to trigger the players to make action declaration statements." The description of the starting town as Hardby isn't triggering an action declaration It's just colour. I could have said Zamboula if I wanted to. Or just made something up.

The action declarations are generted by the details of situation that aren't mere colour, like the angel feather for sale by the peddler. That's not based on notes.

RedShirtNo5.1 said:
Pemerton? - improvise in order to provide frame

The GM's role is to establish situations - framing - that speaks to the dramatic needs of the PCs, as evinced by the player through PC build, through actual play, etc. This then leads to action declarations by the players for their PCs - resolution of those declarations provides new material that feeds into further framing, etc.

So if the plauyer builds a Raven Queen devotee, then situations are going to include agents of Orcus. If the player builds a mage who is trying to find items to help free his brother from possession by a balrog, then the situation is going to include stuff that speaks to that desire, like angel feathers of doubtul provenance.

This goes also to the contrast between mere colour, and substantive aspects of the situation. The fact that the Orcus cultists is 5' tall or 6' tall is (at least in every game I've run that I can think of) mere colour. I've never had a player build a PC where personal height is a thematic component of the PC. The fact that the Orcus cultist wields a mace is also colour, but - assuming that "mace" here is the mechanical representation of a skull-tipped rod - is also part of establishing the feel of an Orcus cultist. The fact that the Orcus cultist is in a tomb or not is - in the context of the Raven Queen devoteese - more than mere colour, because that matters to the way in which, in that particular context of play, Orcus's desecration of the dead is going to play out. And obviously the fact that the cultist serves Orcus rather than (say) Demogorgon is not mere colour.

An understanding on the GM's part of what is mere colour, and what is not, is pretty important to the approach I am describing. Glossing over mere colour is fine, and even expected. But glossing over some substantive element of a scene is a GMing mistake, on this approach. This also connects to establishing stakes, which goes back to secret backstory: suppose the cultist is some otherwise run-of-the-mill townsperson. The players are aware that, if their PCs kill the cultist, that has consequences in the mundane world - eg the dead cultist will be missed by family, colleagues etc. If the GM thinks its appropriate to introduce that into some subsequent framing, it probably doesn't matter whether the dead cultist turns out to have been a cobbler or a baker.

But if the cultist is (say) an undertaker, then that probably should be part of the framing, as that bears directly upon the stakes of the situation - this cultist of Orcus has been handling funerary preparations for who knows how many people! That's not mere colour that can be harmlessly established after the event.

I also would like to stress that improvisation is not really the key concept here. What is key is (i) an absence of unilateral authorship of the setting by the GM, and (ii) no use of secret backstory as an element of framing so as to defeat action declarations.

You can get (i) and (ii) with prepared material - be that encounter maps (for systems that use them) or NPC ideas or NPC/creature statblocks - that is likely to be useful. Preparing material doesn't, itself, estalish the setting prior to its actual use in play.

hawkeyefan said:
What about a third option? Where the person actually has plans with their friend and thinks ahead of time "I've got to remember to ask about the family, and work, and if he's had any chance to play D&D". And then introduces those topics that are known points of interest to the friend, and then they discuss them.

Conversations aren't always this purely spontaneous occurrence. And to be honest, when they are, they can be crappy. Everyone's bumped into someone unexpectedly and not had anything to say, and then later on realized "oh I should have mentioned X". Sometimes, preparation is good.

Same with a game.

Preparation isn't the same thing as pre-establishing setting. And it's even moreso not the same thing as pre-establishing setting secretly or unilaterally.

Preparation can include all sorts of different things, depending on the system, the campaign context, etc.

Writing up some NPC ideas is preparation. Whether ot not that is also establishing setting is a further matter. Before my first BW session, I had an idea for a NPC taken from a Penumbra d20 module - a renegade murdering mage. I wrote up a BW version of that character.

During the course of play, as the situation with the peddler, the feather, the curse, and Jabal the red unfolded, I introduced that NPC into the situation as part of the framing - as the dishevelled figure visible on Jabal' staircase, and as the person who sold the feather to the peddler.

The preparation did not establish any element of the shared fiction. The moments of framing and narration, in the course of play, did.

pemerton · Feb 10, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
he has trouble looking at games with more scripting (prep, worldbuilding, secret backstory, whatever) and figuring out what people get from that.

I've been more focused on trying to accurately describe what is going on, rather than analyse what people get from it - which can be rather subjective.

Ovinomancer said:
I guess the wrap up is that players can be both actors in the game and the audience for the game.

That's not controversial. Players can also be authors and audience.

But if the GM is narrating pre-authored material to the players, and is using that material to adjudicate action declaration, what acting/agency are the players providing? They may be determining the sequence in which the pre-authored material is revealed by the GM (qv The Alexandrian's "node-based design"), or whether or not it is revealed at all. They establish characterisation for their PCs. What else?

Ovinomancer said:
how the story unfolds can appeal to different players according to where players fall in those camps. Some players love being the actor, being the focal point of the story and having everything engage them and nothing that constrains that engagement. Other players are more situated on the audience side -- yes they act, but they're mostly there to be entertained, to be part of an entertaining story, and they're not nearly as interested in acting on that story as having the story act on them

Right. And how is it possibly pejorative to describe this as "the GM reading the players his/her notes"? That's exactly what the story/entertainment consists in!

pemerton · Feb 10, 2018

Jester David said:
Your argument can be reduced to:
"I (think/ know) my players can tell when I'm improvising or using pre-planned ideas. Therefore, all players can tell when all DMs are using pre-planned ideas rather than improvising.
And that's a big ol' "no".

No. My claim is that there is a difference between helping establish the shared fiction, and having someone else preauthor it and provide it to you.

I looked at a little bit of Critical Role, and it looked pretty GM-driven to me.

Jester David said:
The details that matter are basically madlibs. "This is the <place noun> of an NPC <class> whose is you <relation>." You can mix and match those blanks infinitely but the actual effect on the session is unchanged if the players are racing to their mage brother's tower to save him from an assassin or charging to their thief sister's warehouse lair to save her from a slaadi.

If the GM is driving the players through a series of fetch-quests and McGuffin hunts, then what you say might be true. If the game is actually player-driven in the sorts of ways I've described, where the whole orientation of play is towards the dramatic needs of the PCs (as build and/or played by their players) then it's not so at all.

To give an obvious literary example, The Quiet American can't just be reworked by changing the setting from Vietnam to Korea, changing Pyle from American to Chinese, and changing Fowler from English to Russian. Or by making Phuong a friend rather than a lover.

And just confining myself to the small episode of play described above and referenced in your thread, it matters that the assassin is a friend of the mage PC; that the assassin had earlier, in a duel of wits, extracted a promise from the mage PC to help defeat the brother; that the dominated PC is trying to capture the mage for his naga master; that the mage PC does not want to completely destroy his relationship with Jabal (whose tower it is); etc.

Jester David said:
The relationship and how it affects the players is the important part and what the players care about. The origin of the specific noun does not.

The relationship affects the players because of their role in establishing it. They have chosen (eg) to play Raven Queen devotees; or Nightcrawler; or a mage with a demon-possessed brother.

Addressing that, in play, and allowing the players' responses to actually shape the ingame situation, is significant. Conversely, treating such material as the stuff for "sidequests", or as mere colour (eg the Raven Queen devotee says a prayer over killed foes), or as background that explains why the PC is ready to adventure, has a different (more-or-less opposite) significance.

Jester David said:
that play experience isn't affected if you took a pre-existing tower that was on a map in a published campaign setting and just said, "oh, this is the NPC tower", tweaking the description to match their tastes.[/quote\

Ovinomancer said:

pemerton isn't really adverse to pre-authored material so long as it's presented as framing and not as part of action resolution. Prepping an encounter map or a villain (his naga and the elf in the desert come to mind) are perfectly fine, so long as their introduction is open and such things are not used to negate action declarations. He's not ever been clear on this, though, so I might misunderstand him once again.

Click to expand...

Preparation isn't the same thing as establishing the shared fiction.

A monster manual is preparation. A book of maps is preparation. Noting up a whole lot of NPCs (stats, personalities, either, both) is preparation. Making notes like "Orcus cultists attack if the Raven Queen devotees meet with the baron" is preparation.

But it is not inherent in any such preparation that it establishes any element of the shared fiction. I carry a Monster Manual and Monster Vault with me to my 4e sessions. These books have orcs in them. But (as best I recall) orcs, and Gruumsh, have never figured in our campaign. So it's a completely open question whether or not the shared fiction includes them.

For a long time I carried around notes on a possible duergar stronghold (written up by drawing from the module H2). I ended up not using them, as the occasion never arose. When the PCs eventually visited a duergar stronghold the context was completely different from one in which those notes would make sense, and so the only bit of them that I used was some NPC names. That other material is not part of the shared fiction.

In short, preparing material and ideas is not the same thing as worldbuilding, as establishing setting. But obviously some GMs treat it in that fashion - which is the topic of the OP.

Jester David said:

many PCs also just want the rollercoaster with the solid plot, even if there are heavy rails. So long as the story is good, does it matter? And there's the challenge of doing better than other groups.

Click to expand...

I assume that by "PCs" you mean players.

I've got no doubt that some players like the GM to tell them a story. Presumably that's one answer to the question asked at the start of this thread: worldbuiling, in the sense of GM pre-authored setting that the GM uses to frame and adjudicate action resolution, provides the content of that story.

By "doing better than other groups" I assume you mean that the players defeat the (pre-authored) combat encounters in fewer rounds or consuming fewer resources; or solve the puzzle more quickly, eg by finding a more optimal sequence for having the GM narrate the material, or drawing inferences more quickly from a thinner basis of GM narration - although I suspect that this latter sort of "doing better" can cause headaches in D&D if the players don't do enough of whatever it is that will earn their PCs sufficient levels to actually be able to take on the later (pre-authored) combat encounters.

Jester David said:

I know some players that would be appalled by the idea of the DM just making things up as they occurred. The idea that they're not on the right track or doing the right thing but simply rolling well or having things laid out for them.

Click to expand...

First, you present your two option - on the right track (ie correctly discerning the GM's notes) vs rolling well or having things laid out for them - as if they cover the field.

What about having their dramatic needs addressed? In my 4e game, the player of the invoker/wizard, tasked by Erathis and the Raven Queen to restore the Rod of Seven Parts, and to work with Bane and Levistus so as to ensure the Abyss is not inadventently let loose, may soon have to choose whether or not to add the final piece of the Rod to the six currently-assembled pieceds. In some earlier episodes of play, the same player had to decide what to do with the Eye of Vecna (he implanted it in his imp familiar), and whether to allow Vecna, or the Raven Queen, to receive the flow of soul energy that had been feeding Torog's Soul Abattoir until the PCs destroyed that piece of magical apparatus.

None of these choices are about "rolling well" or "having things laid out for you". Nor are they about "being on the right track". There is no right track. The game is not a puzzle. There is no prescribed endgame the players are shooting for. It's about making a choice that matters to the character, and discovering how that will shape the content of the resulting fiction. In this approach to play, the idea of "doing better than other groups" doesn't have any sort of purchase at all; there is no common "story" or puzzle being worked through as the main focus of play.

The idea of such choices seems to be fundamentally absent from your conception of RPGing. But it is fundamental to what I enjoy about RPGing, both as a player and a GM.

pemerton · Feb 10, 2018

BryonD said:
To me, and I'd be comfortable saying to many others I've gamed with, being a player is tied to being an alternate person within a setting and context and having the experience as that person.

<snip>

"NO" is an important part of the joy of success.

In the context of action declarations which concern the PC learning about the gameworld rather than the PC changing the gameworld - and perhaps even for some of the latter, if there are secret elements of the fiction that the GM will treat as part of the fictional positioning (eg the notorious chamberlain example from years ago) - then succes here means trigger the GM to narrate for you the relevant part of his/her pre-authored material.

Eg success in finding the map means, as player, declaring the right move (eg "I search the such-and-such") that will lead to the GM narrating the location of the map from his/her notes.

This may or may not be fun - that's obviously a matter of taste. But clearly it involves relatively little player agency in respsect of the content of the shared fiction.

Ovinomancer said:
System matters. Its very hard to do this in D&D, for instance, but baked in to DW and BW. Its doable to greater or lesser extents in other systems.

Burning Wheel does not assume no prep. Monster Burning, full-fledged Character Burning, etc are lengthy processes. The game assumes that the GM will do these things between actual play sessions. (And also the players, if appropriate -eg the player of the mage in my BW game befriended a NPC cleric by way of a Circles check, and then burned her up.)

What BW does assume is that the GM will not pre-author situations and outcomes. (The map example, once again, illustrates the point.)

AbdulAlhazred said:
I think fictional positioning is basically the same sort of limiter in my process of running a game. You can't just do any old arbitrary thing as a player because your PC needs the fictional positioning to make that happen. Now, you may be able to, within limits, establish parts of the narrative yourself and then use that as a way to get your character positioned

<snip>

Say 'yes' is A technique, but it isn't the last word in story-driven play. Its just a good starting point

This thread keeps getting side-tracked by assumptions that don't hold good, and that I and you and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] have already posted about.

"Say 'yes' or roll the dice" is an approach to resolving action declarations: if the GM frames a situation (eg "OK, so you're in the cartographer's study - what are you doing?"), and the player then declares an action for his/her PC that is congruent with the established framing (eg "I search for the map!"), the GM has two options: either the GM says "yes", or the GM calls for a check. The GM says "yes" if nothing is at stake - essentially we're establishing some colour, or narrating some transition in the situation on our way to the crunch; the GM calls for a check when something is at stake.

Plenty of RPGs can be run in this way: 4e seems to me to encourage it; Burning Wheel mandates it; Cortex+ Heroic appears to presuppose it. Classic Traveller can tolerate it (but defaults fairly heavily to rolling the dice, as it has a very liberal conception of when something is at stake).

The use of this technique is quite separate from allowing the players to stipulate new elements of the fiction. That is not a default part of any of the above-mentioned systems. (Contrast, say Fate, or OGL Conan, which do allow this as a core system element, by way of fate point expenditure.)

Sometimes saying "yes" may allow the player to, incidentally to the action declaration, establish some part of the fiction (eg "I collect herbs as we walk through the forest" "OK, no worries"). If the GM thinks this is controversial, of course s/he can call for a check ("OK, roll Foraging").

Also, the GM in BW is encouraged to allow a player a bonus die if s/he asks for it by reference to some element of the fictional positioning (eg "I use those herbs I collected to flavour the soup" grants +1D to cooking), and in some context that could allow the player to establish modest elements of the situation (eg if events are unfolding a kitchen, the player might say "I take up a position near the oven, so they risk getting burned if they attack my flank" "OK, have +1D to block").

But the player can't, by default, just specify something like "OK, my friend is here to help me" (in BW that would be a Circles check; in 4e the GM might call for a Streetwise check, or just say no).

This is a signifcant difference between RPGing and improv theatre. RPGing, at least in its mainstream form, has distinct player and GM roles, and the player role is based around declaring actions for a particular character in the shared fiction. You don't need to move beyond that in order to have player-driven play (resulting from "say 'yes' or roll the diced adjudication of declared actions).

hawkeyefan · Feb 10, 2018

pemerton said:
Preparation isn't the same thing as pre-establishing setting. And it's even moreso not the same thing as pre-establishing setting secretly or unilaterally.

I’m not saying they’re the same. I’d say one can be an example of the other.

pemerton said:
Preparation can include all sorts of different things, depending on the system, the campaign context, etc.

Writing up some NPC ideas is preparation. Whether ot not that is also establishing setting is a further matter. Before my first BW session, I had an idea for a NPC taken from a Penumbra d20 module - a renegade murdering mage. I wrote up a BW version of that character.

During the course of play, as the situation with the peddler, the feather, the curse, and Jabal the red unfolded, I introduced that NPC into the situation as part of the framing - as the dishevelled figure visible on Jabal' staircase, and as the person who sold the feather to the peddler.

The preparation did not establish any element of the shared fiction. The moments of framing and narration, in the course of play, did.

I suppose if the fiction ended there you’d be right. But I would imagine a murderous mage may shape the fiction going forward quite a bit differently than if you’d prepped an absentminded old sage. No?

And either way, I’m not saying that there can’t be anything useful about spontaneous creativity...to letting the game and the players and their choices shape things. I enjoy it.

But I also think that having some ideas ahead of time is a good idea. And clearly based on your comments about prep, you do, too.

BryonD · Feb 10, 2018

pemerton said:
BryonD said:

To me, and I'd be comfortable saying to many others I've gamed with, being a player is tied to being an alternate person within a setting and context and having the experience as that person.

<snip>

"NO" is an important part of the joy of success./QUOTE]In the context of action declarations which concern the PC learning about the gameworld rather than the PC changing the gameworld - and perhaps even for some of the latter, if there are secret elements of the fiction that the GM will treat as part of the fictional positioning (eg the notorious chamberlain example from years ago) - then succes here means trigger the GM to narrate for you the relevant part of his/her pre-authored material.

Eg success in finding the map means, as player, declaring the right move (eg "I search the such-and-such") that will lead to the GM narrating the location of the map from his/her notes.

This may or may not be fun - that's obviously a matter of taste. But clearly it involves relatively little player agency in respsect of the content of the shared fiction.

Click to expand...

Your proclamation seems myopic and bizarre.

But that is just going to go back down the same rabbit hole once more. The entire idea of "player agency" vs. "player fun" when the player wants to be 100% in character remains a disconnect. And I can completely respect the idea that you prefer something different than me. It is the unending rejection of the idea that "shared fiction" remains awesome even where the sharing is highly asymmetrical because the player's agency is constrained to what their character can do and the DM has unlimited authority of authorship.

And yet, even with that concurrence of the vague concept of player agency, the extrapolation to "right moves" and presumption that the answer will be in DM notes is terribly off-base. My players would laugh their asses off if I told them someone claimed the games they are in worked that way.

I do recognize that you are referencing constraints which have been identified in this thread. But those constraints have also been shown to be artificial and misleading. Holding to them as sacred seems to be simply an effort to avoid hearing the actual position of the other side and engaging in good faith dialogue.

pemerton · Feb 10, 2018

Aenghus said:
I think a significant proportion of players don't want a decision-heavy game, or want to restrict their decisions making to particular subsets of the whole.

This is surely true.

But it would seem odd to also assert that those players are exerting a lot of agency in play!

What is worldbuilding for?

hawkeyefan

Legend

Aenghus

Explorer

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

hawkeyefan

Legend

BryonD

Hero

pemerton

Legend

Similar Threads

What is *worldbuilding* for?

Legend

Explorer

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Hero

Legend

Similar Threads

What is worldbuilding for?