Forked from "An Epiphany" thread: Is World Building "Necessary"?

[Imaro]

Imaro, let me ask you a question then. You said that you are going to take 6 months developing your game world. Not that you have to, but you are going to. If your game, for whatever reason, died tomorrow, would you feel comfortable starting that campaign next week? If not, how long would it be before you would feel comfortable starting to write adventures for that campaign world?

In all honesty, with what I have now, I would probably give myself two weeks. I'd also be asking my players why the current campaign died since it's exactly the kind of campaign you're advocating and if it was because there wasn't enough meat to the world I might ask my players if they want to do some one shots until it's to the point where that wouldn't happen again... otherwise it's all a waste of time.

 

[Kask]

But you're right none of these statements give the impression or insinuation that worldbuilding is a bad thing.

Don't get too worked up about it. People can only opine based on their own experience. Some people have less, or more, experience than others...

 

[Scribble]

Don't get too worked up about it. People can only opine based on their own experience. Some people have less, or more, experience than others...

Hrmmm I think I would say that people can only opine based on their own experienc(es.) Some people have different experiences then others which colors their opinion one way or another.

 

[Kask]

Hrmmm I think I would say that people can only opine based on their own experienc(es.) Some people have different experiences then others which colors their opinion one way or another.

Yes, of course. Someone who has been playing for 2 years would probably have a narrower spectrum of experiences to draw from than someone who has played for 30 years. That is assumed in my statement.

 

[Scribble]

Yes, of course. Someone who has been playing for 2 years would probably have a narrower spectrum of experiences to draw from than someone who has played for 30 years. That is assumed in my statement.

Sure, and someone playing for 30 years could also have a different experience then someone else playing for 30 years- which colors his opinion in the same way that person playing for 2 years sees it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

For those keeping score at home, here's a selection of my own posts, pointing out that I wasn't just screaming from the mountaintops that world building is bad.

Pulling back when people point out the problems with your posts, only to restate the same things later in different words, doesn't really make your posts (or your points) more logical overall.


RC

 

[Barastrondo]

As a theory as to why the game itself, as in books and articles, might emphasize world-building as something fun and interesting to do:

It's key to the hobby that running a game be fun. And I think the allure of world-building is a selling point for brand-new GMs. You want to make GMing something with lots of fun aspects to prep time, because otherwise it can be a daunting job. It's a similar principle to 4e design making things easier on the DM: without enthusiastic people running the game, you have fewer players acquired and retained.

Emphasis on world-building is an approach that encourages new GMs to give it a go. It's dangling a carrot of "hey, neat stuff to play with!", emphasizing the creative aspect to make the task more interesting than simply playing referee. Now, I certainly think there could also be some more discussion of how to plot an adventure, or tools to aid improvisational GMing, but world-building is probably a good inspirational hook to get newcomers to try running a game in the first place.

It's not guaranteed success, mind, but I think it's at least more responsible than dangling the carrot of "YOU HAVE THE POWER! THEY LIVE AND DIE AT YOUR WILL!"

 

[Kask]

Sure, and someone playing for 30 years could also have a different experience then someone else playing for 30 years- which colors his opinion in the same way that person playing for 2 years sees it.

Possible, but a person who's played for 30 years will have far more diverse experiences to put a particular datum into perspective than someone who has played for 2 years. That's the crux of the matter.

 

[Scribble]

Possible, but a person who's played for 30 years will have far more diverse experiences to put a particular datum into perspective than someone who has played for 2 years. That's the crux of the matter.

Possibly, but they might have 30 years worth of similar data.

When I read your statement it read as: Someone with more experience will have one opinion, someone with less will have another.

I don't feel that to be true. It's not so much the length of time someone has experienced something, so much as the experiences they've had. The actual experience is more important then the length of time they've had experiencing it.

(It also doesn't seem to take into account that just because a particular experience was more prevailant 30 years ago, doesn't mean it will be today.)

 

[Kask]

Possibly, but they might have 30 years worth of similar data.

Possibly but highly unlikely.