The Art and Science of Worldbuilding For Gameplay [+]

[prabe]

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.

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.

The Fantasy Mesoamerica in my setting isn't even really informing anything the PCs are interacting with, though. I mean, it's (at least mostly) where coffee, chocolate, and vanilla come from, but that's about the extent of it.

The improvisations I make are often constrained or informed by previously established things in the setting. I have at times made decisions after introduction that ... changed the lighting on them, at least.

 

[Reynard]

It is interesting that so many people are focusing on the need for "blank spots on the map" as being absolutely necessary for play. I don't think that is true at all. What you need for play is interesting things to do. The players need to have choices with consequences, and places to make those choices.

Now, i am not saying you must have everything completely detailed, but I am saying that you can in fact have everything completely detailed. Empty spaces are only as good as the GM's ability to fill them, and detail does not preclude additional detail created by the GM.

I suppose there is a such thing as prescriptive or limiting detail. I would say when doing world building for gameplay, avoid that. Avoid creating setting elements that stop play. Ona small scale it is a locked door in a linear dungeon where the rest of the adventure is on the other side. On a larger scale it might be a bestiary that purports to include literally every potential monster. Even Tolkien did not do that; he gave us a world in which there are many "nameless things" that roam the dark of the world.

 

[Reynard]

The Fantasy Mesoamerica in my setting isn't even really informing anything the PCs are interacting with, though. I mean, it's (at least mostly) where coffee, chocolate, and vanilla come from, but that's about the extent of it.

So do you just think it needs to exist for the world to feel whole or real?

The improvisations I make are often constrained or informed by previously established things in the setting. I have at times made decisions after introduction that ... changed the lighting on them, at least.

All I am saying is that the things we create have more potential if we can examine them from a few angles before introducing them in play. Like I said, I am primarily a improvisational GM, so i understand the fun of it and do try and make sure things fit. But that said, some ideas work better if we think about them for a while. I might make up and NPC or new monster on the fly, but I wouldn't want to introduce a whole new form of magic on the fly unless I gave the players as little detail as possible.

i do think that things become real once you introduce them, and are subject to change until you do so -- even if they are pieces of deep worldbuilding.

 

[prabe]

It is interesting that so many people are focusing on the need for "blank spots on the map" as being absolutely necessary for play. I don't think that is true at all. What you need for play is interesting things to do. The players need to have choices with consequences, and places to make those choices.

Now, i am not saying you must have everything completely detailed, but I am saying that you can in fact have everything completely detailed. Empty spaces are only as good as the GM's ability to fill them, and detail does not preclude additional detail created by the GM.

I suppose there is a such thing as prescriptive or limiting detail. I would say when doing world building for gameplay, avoid that. Avoid creating setting elements that stop play. Ona small scale it is a locked door in a linear dungeon where the rest of the adventure is on the other side. On a larger scale it might be a bestiary that purports to include literally every potential monster. Even Tolkien did not do that; he gave us a world in which there are many "nameless things" that roam the dark of the world.

If all your world is filled in, maybe some people feel that's limiting the direction of gameplay. At a minimum, the stuff that never matters to gameplay doesn't seem as though it's adding to it.

 

[prabe]

So do you just think it needs to exist for the world to feel whole or real?

All I am saying is that the things we create have more potential if we can examine them from a few angles before introducing them in play. Like I said, I am primarily a improvisational GM, so i understand the fun of it and do try and make sure things fit. But that said, some ideas work better if we think about them for a while. I might make up and NPC or new monster on the fly, but I wouldn't want to introduce a whole new form of magic on the fly unless I gave the players as little detail as possible.

i do think that things become real once you introduce them, and are subject to change until you do so -- even if they are pieces of deep worldbuilding.

I think it needs to exist because I refuse to countenance a world that doesn't have coffee, chocolate, and vanilla. And because the world doesn't just have Fantasy Europe and its near neighbors in it.

It doesn't sound as though in practice we GM all that differently. I maybe am less convinced than you are that you need to examine those angles before introducing the thing--I think you can examine the angles after the introduction and remain consistent, and make for depth. Of course, I don't feel as though improvised things have inherently less depth than pre-written ones, which has at least seemed to be your position.

 

[Reynard]

I think it needs to exist because I refuse to countenance a world that doesn't have coffee, chocolate, and vanilla. And because the world doesn't just have Fantasy Europe and its near neighbors in it.

I'm all for considering the big picture.

It doesn't sound as though in practice we GM all that differently. I maybe am less convinced than you are that you need to examine those angles before introducing the thing--I think you can examine the angles after the introduction and remain consistent, and make for depth. Of course, I don't feel as though improvised things have inherently less depth than pre-written ones, which has at least seemed to be your position.

I do think that, but I am not saying depth can't be added. I am just saying that the table is not always the best place to add the details that produce depth, because you generally have less opportunity to mull and revise at the table in play.

 

[Reynard]

If all your world is filled in, maybe some people feel that's limiting the direction of gameplay.

I am not sure how this would occur.

At a minimum, the stuff that never matters to gameplay doesn't seem as though it's adding to it.

It adds in the sense that there is a larger context and so the world will feel more developed and real. There is of course a limit to the world building one person can do, or the amount of research they can do into an existing world (whether it is a made up setting or a historical period). So I don't think it is necessary or desirable to aim for perfect complete detail. But other than some limiting detail I mentioned above, I don't think it can hurt.

Note: that is not to say that a world builder GM can't "mess up" by not focusing on the things they need to prep for the next session. I agree totally that the stuff in front of the PCs is paramount. But that falls more under "prep" than "world building" for the purposes of this discussion. We can assume ALL the world building was finished a year before the campaign even started to that end.

Prep is a separate thing (for which I created a thread a while back, in fact) and not really germain to this discussion.

 

[TwoSix]

It adds in the sense that there is a larger context and so the world will feel more developed and real. There is of course a limit to the world building one person can do, or the amount of research they can do into an existing world (whether it is a made up setting or a historical period). So I don't think it is necessary or desirable to aim for perfect complete detail. But other than some limiting detail I mentioned above, I don't think it can hurt.

This is where I would disagree.

As an example, we have a perfectly developed setting with 1000s of years of history, mapped to the individual and street level, that players will be familiar with....Earth.

If I'm running a spy game on modern-day Earth, and I want to do a car chase scenario in our character's current location, pulling up map data and accurate traffic patterns is both feasible and yet wildly disruptive to the actual flow of the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

NOTE: This is a + thread, which means that we won't be discussing the actual merits of GM Worldbuilding. There are other threads where that is happening. Argue in one of those, please.

In a certain style of RPG campaign play, the world is established in pretty concrete terms and the players explore, discover and change that world through their characters experiences and actions. This was probably the dominant for of play for most of the history of traditional RPGs (although books like The Elusive Shift show us that even during the earliest days there was a wide variety of playstyles).

Sometimes, the world is defined in supplements and adventures, created by a publishing company. Sometimes the world is adapted from other media, from Middle Earth to Earth 1 to A Galaxy Far, Far Away. And sometimes, perhaps most often, the world is the creation of the GM, custom built for play. There are, of course, combinations of these elements, with the GM taking ownership over existing worlds and changing them to suit, to publishing companies producing licensed worlds of existing properties, to fan creations informed by uncounted contributors, and more.

While we can debate the relative value of each of these different techniques in this thread, I am more interested in a specific aspect of world building for RPGs: playability.

Playability includes a few things. First and foremost in my mind is does the world provide opportunities for "adventure" (whatever that means in the context of the game the world is meant for). Do the player characters have stuff to do in the world? Second and only slightly less important is does the world mesh with and support the game's mechanical elements? Sometimes a world blatantly clashes with the game it is meant for (looking at you, MERP) and that can either be a disaster or create an unintended new thing. Finally, does the world inspire the GM? This is more for published worlds. Does reading the setting book send the GM's mind racing with possibilities? For me, the original Eberron Campaign Setting is the ideal expression of this aspect.

What do you think about world building toward gameplay? What are the techniques a world builder can use to build toward gameplay, and what should be avoided? What happens when a world builder finds they are building more for their own pleasure or for bespoke stories than for gameplay? How can they salvage their world? What TTRPG worlds really speak to you from a "built for gameplay" perspective, and which are interesting worlds but fail in the gameplay department?

Interesting topic. I'm of the school which is leery of too much constraining detail. There's utility in preparation, but a fine line between what makes play go better and what begins to weigh on playing to find out what happens.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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 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.

I guess many of us will have to mightily disagree with you then on that point.