The Art and Science of Worldbuilding For Gameplay [+]

[pemerton]

Those places weren't blank, you as the player just didn't know about them. The universe didn't invent them for you as you approached.

I'm not confused about how urban space works.

But given that (i) the fiction of a RPG might occur in urban areas, and (ii) it is literally impossible for someone to worldbuild a fictional urban space that has the detail and variety of an actual urban space, then either (iii) the RPG setting will be impoverished, or (iv) some other approach is necessary.

An example of (iv) is found in Traveller (1977), as per my post just upthread. That approach depends upon "leaving blanks".

 

[prabe]

As I have stated upthread, i don't think blank spaces are particularly important, unless you define a "blank space" as anything not completely exhaustively defined. I mean you don't need a region of literally empty hexes on your world map. There will be plenty of times that you will realize you did not consider this or that. You don't necessarily need to build it in.

My world is intentionally and explicitly incomplete, at least in part because my experience is that players will beeline toward what is not known/defined. I think being honest that, for instance, I know some things about a given region in my setting, but I haven't worked out all the details, makes for a more playable world--more quickly--than trying to build out all the world before playing in it at all. Heck, I started with just one continent and where the starting city was on it.

 

[TwoSix]

I am not sure about all this. If you made up a special subclass aimed at PCs to represent the kinds of wizards that exist in the setting, that feels like a thing the players need to know about going in.

Absolutely not. Way more fun (for both the DM and the players) if character growth is unexpected. Diegetic progression whenever possible should be the standard for adventure gaming.

And, to be clear, these new classes/subclasses wouldn't be the "default" for adventuring people. They'd be opportunities to showcase avenues of progression tied to setting elements. If every wizard in the setting is normally one of these new subclasses, then sure, you need to let the players know. My advice is more "Don't do that, because you don't want to your players to have to learn a bunch of new material just to play the game".

 

[Reynard]

In principle, might some of this be carried by system rather than by setting?

An example I've got in mind is from Traveller (1977) - the rules for Admin skill and Streetwise skill relieve the world-building GM of the need to detail particular sorts of setting elements and their relationships (roughly, the bulk of urban society).

Random tables and techniques for procedural generation can certainly be helpful in world building toward playability. The most basic example is a bespoke random encounter chart for a specific location in D&D. Listing the potential encounters and their probability for the Swamp of Doom is world building and supports playability. It also does not discourage detailed world building. Madra Nocht the Night Hag can still have her dwelling in the Swamp and all that associated world building detail, even if you define most of the Doom by way of that encounter chart. They are complementary.

 

[pemerton]

The choice isn't, "find a secret entrance", it's "look for a secret entrance". I look for things that turn out not be there all the time. Doesn't affect my ability to make choices.

The quote you posted doesn't use the word "choice" and says nothing about choices. So I don't really know what you're talking about.

You're discussing playstyles here, not playability. The types of games you prefer don't approach worldbuilding the way @Reynard posits in the OP, so what you and others are essentially doing here is arguing against the premise in a "+" thread to promote your playstyle. I expect you wouldn't care for that if the roles were reversed.

I'm not talking about "playstyle" nor "playability". I'm talking about limits on game play.

Nor am I arguing against world building. Rather, I'm saying that one point of world building, in the context of RPGing, is to limit game play.

For instance, when I build an adventure site for my Torchbearer game, and I specify where the secret entrances are, I'm making it the case that attempts to find secret entrances in other places will fail. One consequence of this is that, if the players want their PCs to get to the other side of the wall that their PCs are in front of, they will have to declare some other sort of action.

That's a limit on gameplay. And, again, that's an important part of the point of building the setting in advance. If I didn't want to impose that sort of limit on game play, I would use a different sort of approach to setting (eg I'd use Burning Wheel rather than Torchbearer).

 

[Reynard]

Absolutely not. Way more fun (for both the DM and the players) if character growth is unexpected. Diegetic progression whenever possible should be the standard for adventure gaming.

This is an assertion of a preference, not a truism, just to be clear.

And, to be clear, these new classes/subclasses wouldn't be the "default" for adventuring people. They'd be opportunities to showcase avenues of progression tied to setting elements. If every wizard in the setting is normally one of these new subclasses, then sure, you need to let the players know. My advice is more "Don't do that, because you don't want to your players to have to learn a bunch of new material just to play the game".

This is good world building with playability as a goal. I like it. I misunderstood your intent.

 

[pemerton]

I certainly would, because it's what the PCs decided to do in that game. What's your definition?

What @TwoSix said.

 

[TwoSix]

This is an assertion of a preference, not a truism, just to be clear.

To be clear, it's a preference that should be a truism.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What @TwoSix said.

Seems very limited to me.

 

[Emberashh]

A pretty apropos GDC talk:

Rather, I'm saying that one point of world building, in the context of RPGing, is to limit game play.

Absolutely not. That is entirely wrong and frankly, objectively so.

Worldbuilding enriches gameplay, it does not limit it.