What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Nagol]

If the world that is being built is big or complex, then it probably has forces at work that the players (and their PCs) don't know about. How does the presence of those forces affect, or interact with, player proactivity, and the use of world elements as tools to achieve player goals for the game?

My current primary game is like that. The PCs are federal agents tasked with investigating and dealing with anomalous events. They have discovered at least four potent covert factions, a few particularly powerful individuals, and less organized groups with specific agendas.

Initially, the discovery of those forces comes as a surprise much like a trick or trap in a dungeon. Once initial contact is made, the players try to make sense of the force with respect to things already known in the world. The reveal may be a help or hindrance to the current PC plans, though most often it acts as a hindrance since it is an unexpected and hence they are unprepared. The PCs need to react to the reveal.

Later on, depending on the PCs relationship and how their current goals align with these outside interests, they can be help, hindrance, or not a consideration. The PCs can begin to proactively plan for their presence but still need to react when these forces engage unexpectedly.

Here's a modest example. The PCs have encountered Harry Konaklowski, a reporter for the tabloids doing effectively monster-of-the-week stories several times (he is modeled after the original Kolchak the Night Stalker TV series). The first time, he was a bit of a nuisance. His motto "The people have a right to know!" conflicted with the group's desire for a low-key investigation. Since then in no particular order, he has helped the group (he knew what they were about to face and came prepared with the material to deal with it himself), hindered the group (he was investigating a subject the PCs we're trying to keep secret at least twice), and been somewhere between almost helpful and a pain in the rear the rest of the time their paths have crossed. Much of the time Harry isn't a consideration because he hasn't heard of what they're investigating until it's complete. They do keep an eye on his column to see what he is writing about and have discussed feeding him stories to rile up other factions. A least one player thought there might be more to Harry than meets the eye and ran deeper background checks to see if he represents another faction or power group.

The best elements are ones the players may sense in the world before confrontation. They emit "ripples in space-time"; their existence affects the game world in ways the players may perceive and the actual reveal of the force resolves otherwise inconsistent features of the world.

• "A medusa! That's why there were so many polished marble pebbles along the path!"
• "She's a shape changer! That's why no one has seen her at the parties!"
• "I knew Albert and Bob hated each other. That's the only way Cheryl's actions made sense!"

 

[pemerton]

Here's a modest example. The PCs have encountered Harry Konaklowski, a reporter for the tabloids doing effectively monster-of-the-week stories several times (he is modeled after the original Kolchak the Night Stalker TV series). The first time, he was a bit of a nuisance. His motto "The people have a right to know!" conflicted with the group's desire for a low-key investigation. Since then in no particular order, he has helped the group (he knew what they were about to face and came prepared with the material to deal with it himself), hindered the group (he was investigating a subject the PCs we're trying to keep secret at least twice), and been somewhere between almost helpful and a pain in the rear the rest of the time their paths have crossed. Much of the time Harry isn't a consideration because he hasn't heard of what they're investigating until it's complete. They do keep an eye on his column to see what he is writing about and have discussed feeding him stories to rile up other factions. A least one player thought there might be more to Harry than meets the eye and ran deeper background checks to see if he represents another faction or power group.

Is all this stuff determined simply by GM authorial fiat? Or is there a system that underpins it (eg like the patron encounter system in Classic Traveller)?

And - to try and stick to my own thread topic - are these facts about Harry authored in advance by the GM (which is at the heart of my notion of *worldbuilding*)? Or are they established in some other fashion (eg as part of the process of action resolution)?

 

[Nagol]

Is all this stuff determined simply by GM authorial fiat? Or is there a system that underpins it (eg like the patron encounter system in Classic Traveller)?

They could be established by fiat. I tend to build small mechanical systems to help determine engagement, agenda, and success in achieving goals outside the party's view. I find it easier to have some outcome-based resolution systems to rely on when updating the current situation.

And - to try and stick to my own thread topic - are these facts about Harry authored in advance by the GM (which is at the heart of my notion of *worldbuilding*)? Or are they established in some other fashion (eg as part of the process of action resolution)?

Harry's appearance, background, and motivations were authored (I wanted a pretty straight rip-off of Kolchak). His involvement at the start of a situation is authored as part of my situation construction: where he is, what he knows, what he wants to do next. Depending on the situation, I may have created a trajectory to evolve the situation in the absence of player input. Outside that course, his actions and reactions depend in a large part on PC action. Persistent information (his health status, his attitude toward the PCs as a group and individually, his possessions, what knowledge he's gained, any obligations or favours he's earned) are tracked and should affect any future appearance.

When the PCs first encountered him, he was working on an investigation peripheral to the PCs primary mission. The PCs stumbled onto clues pointing to his monster, but couldn't figure out how those tied in with what they were working on (it did, but the puzzle was quite large and they had few pieces at that time). Harry completed his investigation and took care of the problem without the PCs direct involvement as they took a direct course for their own investigation. Although they knew he was the reporter sniffing around and getting underfoot with their investigation, I don't think any of the players ever worked out he was responsible for the arson that destroyed potential evidence (i.e. killed the creature they didn't know was there). His later appearances have shown him to have greater depths, but they've never asked about that first mission.

 

[redrick]

So, what's all this for? Eg why not just have a list of names on a sheet of paper, rather than a kingdom map? Why write down all those room keys in advance? Why specify the gods and altars in advance?

More generally, what is the benefit, for RPGing, of the GM working out in advance of play what elements the PCs will run into and (directly or indirectly) interact with?

I don't know the answer to these questions. It strikes me as possible that Gygax carried over a technique that made sense when desiging the dungeon for play (map and key) onto a different context (the village as an element of backstory and more "abstract" setting) without noticing that it didn't necessarily make sense in that latter context.

Or maybe he wanted to be prepared for a group of players ready to loot the village, because he thought they would bring their play expectations about dungeoneering into the new context of the village.

But in any event, that would be one example of what I have called "world building": the GM (by choosing to use this module) has established a whole lot of stuff about the setting in advance of play - the village layout, inhabitants, their dispositions and possessions, etc. Why do this? (Assuming that it's not just meant to be another dungeon.)

It's a pretty broad question that hits on a lot of different areas of design and prep, which is why I quibble about the definition.

When I design adventure areas, my goals are:
* Provide consistency, both story-wise (who are those altars to?) and geography-wise (how did we go down to flights of stairs and end up on the roof?). I can improv a small, tightly contained adventure area (say a bungalow), but I might get lost trying to build a more complex setting on the fly.
* Originality and quality. Improv falls back a lot on tried and true tropes. By designing something ahead of time, I can get ideas through research on Wikipedia, roll on random tables, steal ideas and settings from published adventures in my collection, and, most importantly, discard the bad ideas that pop into my head in favor of the better ideas that come later.
* Maintain a world that extends beyond the immediate POV of the PCs. I want PCs to feel like the main characters, but I don't want it to feel like the world is constantly being ordered around them. I want a world where there is something different behind Door #1, Door #2 and Door #3 and I know what that is without knowing what the players are going to do.

There are other occasional concerns, like wanting to use a pretty map that is drawn ahead of time, which was a big driver when I played on Roll20 with line-of-sight and fog of war, but less so now when I mostly just draw stuff out for the players on sheets of blank letter paper.

But design should also be flexible. Ideally, I want to be able to seamlessly mix my pre-determined elements with elements that arise at the table, because the players can take me in directions that I would never have gone with my graph paper, room keys and wikipedia entries, and I want to be prepared to go in those directions. So, for instance, I would never prep a town the way Gygax prepped Hommlet. I might have one or two houses laid out, and then I might have a list of a few other "note-worthy" NPCs with their role and possibly one or two other descriptions, and then I'd allow the rest to fill in as the adventure progressed. My understanding is that this is more or less the standard approach to RPG adventure prep these days.

 

[Caliban]

Worldbuilding: Creating a world that I, as the DM, find interesting. I then set up adventures within that world.

Adventure design: Creating encounters and plot lines that the players find interesting and challenging.

Dungeon design: creating a dungeon layout that may focus more on puzzles and combat rather than story or plot. May have little or no relationship to the outside world the dungeon is placed in. Or it may be intimately intertwined with aspects of world building or the current storyline.


Different group prefer to focus on different aspects.

 

[Bawylie]

When you say discovery, do you mean that the players discover what the GM has written?

I’m not sure how to answer that. In a very narrow, literal sense, the answer is necessarily “yes.”

I think that’s too reductive though, so the good and proper answer is “no, not really.”


-Brad

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is a return to previous attempts by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] to delve the difference between DM driven vs player driven gameplay. Essentially, he's driving at the difference between a DM authored adventure where the game elements are prewritten by the DM and the players explore what the DM has created vs nothing except a thematic setting is presented to the players, and they author the game elements as play progresses. Think classic D&D vs Burning Wheel.

This is a new tack, but he's used 'worldbuilding' before, in a different context, to indicate the DM driven playstyle -- ie, things the DM writes down that the player then discover. As I recall, pemerton strongly dislikes this playstyle, as he doesn't want to try to figure out what the DM has made, but would rather create the fiction through his own gameplay. As I also recall, his use of unique definitions for things caused quite a bit of confusion as to what was being talked about. However, I've already seen him angling towards DM driven vs. Player driven discussion in his responses.

To address the OP, however, I agree strongly with a few posts already made that making the dungeon isn't world building, it's adventure design. Worldbuilding is that part where you establish the basic rules and assumptions for play such that dungeons to be explored and treasure to be gained and monsters to be defeated are a thing that this game will do. If I start a game with the assumptions in place that this is a rural area of a magical medieval kingdom and that goblins are a major threat, then that's the worldbuilding. The game can then progress from there either in a more DM authored or player authored way. In a more DM authored game, the DM would create dungeons, or factions, or whathave you for the players to interact with inside that built world. For a player driven game, the players would engage those thematic elements of the built world and structure their narrative control attempts within those terms -- ie, their game 'moves' would leverage magical medieval rural themes and goblin themes, or, at least, they would not counter those themes too strongly.

Worldbuilding is the part where you set the stage and determine the themes and the basic assumptions of play. It can be vague or detailed, as desired for the style of play desired, but it's required for any gameplay to occur. It is also NOT drawing out a dungeon maze. That leans on the built world, and becomes part of it, but it doesn't matter who writes it (players or DM). As gameplay progresses, all new things are added to the built world -- worldbuilding is a continuous process. But, at first, it's the starting assumptions of play.

 

[MarkB]

This is a return to previous attempts by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] to delve the difference between DM driven vs player driven gameplay. Essentially, he's driving at the difference between a DM authored adventure where the game elements are prewritten by the DM and the players explore what the DM has created vs nothing except a thematic setting is presented to the players, and they author the game elements as play progresses. Think classic D&D vs Burning Wheel.

This is a new tack, but he's used 'worldbuilding' before, in a different context, to indicate the DM driven playstyle -- ie, things the DM writes down that the player then discover. As I recall, pemerton strongly dislikes this playstyle, as he doesn't want to try to figure out what the DM has made, but would rather create the fiction through his own gameplay. As I also recall, his use of unique definitions for things caused quite a bit of confusion as to what was being talked about. However, I've already seen him angling towards DM driven vs. Player driven discussion in his responses.

To me, that's all tangential to the what and even the why of worldbuilding. Whether it happens before the game, in the head and/or notes of the DM, before the game as a collaborative effort between the DM and players, or during the game either by the DM, or collaboratively, or using a formalised system of worldbuilding such as random percentile tables, none of that changes what it is - it's worldbuilding, establishing the precepts of the setting.

And it doesn't change why it matters - no matter who establishes these elements, the purpose of it is to establish a sense of place within which the players can define and develop their characters' roles and motivations, and the DM can do the same for the major NPCs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To me, that's all tangential to the what and even the why of worldbuilding. Whether it happens before the game, in the head and/or notes of the DM, before the game as a collaborative effort between the DM and players, or during the game either by the DM, or collaboratively, or using a formalised system of worldbuilding such as random percentile tables, none of that changes what it is - it's worldbuilding, establishing the precepts of the setting.

And it doesn't change why it matters - no matter who establishes these elements, the purpose of it is to establish a sense of place within which the players can define and develop their characters' roles and motivations, and the DM can do the same for the major NPCs.

Right... didn't I say pretty much that in the two paragraphs you didn't include in the quote? Perhaps your intent wasn't to appear to disagree with me?

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

To address the OP, however, I agree strongly with a few posts already made that making the dungeon isn't world building, it's adventure design. Worldbuilding is that part where you establish the basic rules and assumptions for play such that dungeons to be explored and treasure to be gained and monsters to be defeated are a thing that this game will do. If I start a game with the assumptions in place that this is a rural area of a magical medieval kingdom and that goblins are a major threat, then that's the worldbuilding. The game can then progress from there either in a more DM authored or player authored way. In a more DM authored game, the DM would create dungeons, or factions, or whathave you for the players to interact with inside that built world. For a player driven game, the players would engage those thematic elements of the built world and structure their narrative control attempts within those terms -- ie, their game 'moves' would leverage magical medieval rural themes and goblin themes, or, at least, they would not counter those themes too strongly.

Worldbuilding is the part where you set the stage and determine the themes and the basic assumptions of play. It can be vague or detailed, as desired for the style of play desired, but it's required for any gameplay to occur. It is also NOT drawing out a dungeon maze. That leans on the built world, and becomes part of it, but it doesn't matter who writes it (players or DM). As gameplay progresses, all new things are added to the built world -- worldbuilding is a continuous process. But, at first, it's the starting assumptions of play.

I tend to disagree. It is entirely possible the whole of the explorable world is a single dungeon. Indeed there are games with that premise. In that case, I'd like to think you'd agree that the dungeon design is world-building. World-building occurs whenever an element is added that potentially affects more than a single locale. The king of a realm may reside in a dungeon equivalent. Defining the king's personality, motivations, and capabilities is world-building even if he is placed at a specific locale.

I think the line between locale construction and world-building is an artificial one. The locale exists inside the world and needs to conform to any precepts already established. Its design may suggest new precepts to be added to the world. Determining that the cult of <fill in the blank> always has at least three separate entrances for all major buildings is world-building even if the decision comes about because of the design of the first building as part of a locale.

That said, I agree every wall and door placement in a locale is not world-building.