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

[Fallen Seraph]

I've seen you mention this "drag-and-drop style" on numerous occasions and have never quite known what you meant by it. Please explain; in small words and short sentences as I'm a Lanefan of very little brain tonight.

Lanefan

Lol, no problem.

It essentially starts with just brainstorming. I generate a large quantity of landscapes, NPCs, plot-ideas, encounters, etc, etc. But I leave them open and not tied down to any specific aspect of the setting beyond them generally sticking with the atmosphere and themes of the campaign. These can be either specific like certain "set-pieces" (think the major action scenes in a movie) or broad and highly adaptable.

When it comes time to run the game I have all these resources at my disposal that I can "drag and drop" into the game whenever it suits me best. So the PCs state that they plan to head to a mine, I "drag and drop" the elements I generated prior to the game to make up this mine.

Or, if the plotline leads down to a point where the PCs enter a mineshaft then I take the elements that fit that and add it in.

The benefit I find to this style is that I have lots of preparation but more freedom I find then with a solid setting. I need something somewhere it comes into existence, the PCs want to go somewhere it appears. Essentially by using these components I got before hand nothing need exist till it needs too. It gives myself as a DM lots of room to craft the setting and what inhabits within it around the actions of the PCs and the plot, rather then vice-versa.

I bring my laptop too the game with me so each of these "drag and drop" elements are on my laptop so all it takes is a simple click of the button and I got it there infront of me. It takes about the same time to set up a battlegrid with minis that it takes me to set up a new town with NPCs, specifically tailored to what is happening in the plot/actions of the PCs.

That is about as clear as I can make it. I am tempted to make a forked thread actually where each of us just goes step-by-step through our campaign/adventure prep and also running of a game.

 

[howandwhy99]

I have no desire to get into definition arguments between those preferring Forge jargon and those repeating the older definitions of RPG terms before the Big Model was theorized in order to redefine them.

What I would like to point out are a few of things:

1. World building is not an activity performed by a Referee. World buliding is like level design in a CRPG. It is a game designer activity. Just like building a module is, but on a broader scale.

2. Referees (and by association hopefully most DMs) never have any fiat over what happens in an RPG. This includes even when they are in the role of Auxiliary by acting out an NPC. It is important to remember the only people who are taking improvised actions are the Players. Everything else that occurs in the game is either a processed result of Player actions or scripted and proscribed NPC actions by the game designer.

3. Storygamers are playing a game that is the near polar opposite to traditional roleplaying games. Storygames are based upon theatre, addressing theme, and constructing plots. They were built upon what was originally called Munchkinism in the early, earliest days of RPGs. By contrast, roleplaying games as they have been known since 1974 are based upon "roleplay simulation" derived from roleplayed military simulations (the other half of wargaming). These two designs are the inverted opposites to each other, so when arguments arise about the nature of good RPG game design, game play, the role of the DM, and much, much more it is almost always the case that each of the two sides define the same terms, but different elements, by using polar opposite definitions for each. Does this mean either definition is wrong? No. It just means there are two different games going on here, the kind that has been prevalently known as roleplaying games since 1974 and the new "Indie" Storygames that have come out of the Forge these past few years. The big problem is - in my opinion - the seemingly purposeful redefinition of RPG terms to validate Forge-defined definitions and Big Model-based game design as "true" for all RPGs. instead of true for just storygames.

4. The "Big Model" theory is useful to know even if you never plan on playing Storygames. This is not so people who have loved the hobby for years can hear derogatory remarks and argumentative attacks against non-storygames and non-Forge-based RPG designs. Rather it is to know this new jargon and also the redefinitions of old RPG vocabulary terms in order to comprehend when one is conversing with a Storygamer or follower of the Big Model who is simply playing (or prefers) the inversion of the kind of game you and I do. For instance: terms like "railroading" I noticed are having their Forge-based definitions used in this thread as if it were the only definition leading to consensus even though that definition is wholly inaccurate for describing what is happening in non-storygames.

 

[Hussar]

Nothing. Which is why you bringing it up was worth commenting upon.

Looking back, I realize why you went astray there. When I asked if NPC's had goals, that wasn't plot in the sense of "nefarious plan". It was simply the fact that if any actor in your game has goals, you automatically have a plot. My bad for ambiguity.

What I really don't understand is Aristo's comment that plot is anathema to gaming styles. Again, if you have no plot in your game, how can you possibly be playing a role playing game?

I wish you'd stop posting complete non sequiturs. I find them very difficult to respond to. Let's try this:

What part of the word "predetermined" did you not comprehend?

What part of the distinction between "prepared before you play" and "story that can be told after you play" did you fail to understand?

The part where that distinction is entirely false insofar as this conversation is concerned.

Look, if Baron Von Badass has a plan to assassinate the king - is that a plot? It's certainly predetermined by the DM. Heck, unless the PC's intervene, I would say that the outcome is also completely predetermined by the DM as well. It would be a pretty rare DM who would actually roll his way through an assassination by himself and toss out his adventure if the rolls didn't go his way.

What part of "I would argue that the real world does have plots" and "similarly all the campaigns I have played in have plots" did you simply not read at all?

So, why are you arguing with me if you agree with me?

Because it never says "playing that way is wrong"? Because, in fact, it quite explicitly says that different people will have different opinions and tastes and styles of play?

Saying "I like X and I don't like Y" is not a "badwrongfun post".

Ok. I can agree that "I like X and I don't like Y" is not a badwrongfun post. Unfortunately, I don't seem to have the apparent secret decoder glasses that allow me to ignore all the snark and whatnot and see Aristo's point. He's basically straight up said that anyone who doesn't play the way he plays isn't really playing D&D. But, apparently, that's not badwrongfun posting. Fine. I'll let it go.

Howandwhy.

Umm, are you saying that no DM out there should world build?

1. World building is not an activity performed by a Referee. World buliding is like level design in a CRPG. It is a game designer activity. Just like building a module is, but on a broader scale.

And, for the love of God, can we stop with the edition war crap? FFS, this is not about any specific edition at all. I would very much prefer to go back to discussing the pros and cons of world building. If you cannot couch your argument without referring to an edition, fork the thread and take it elsewhere.

 

[howandwhy99]

Howandwhy.

Umm, are you saying that no DM out there should world build?

Of course not. Folks are free to make House Rules. That's what homebrewing is. Just realize that what they are doing is game design, not playing the game.

And, for the love of God, can we stop with the edition war crap? FFS, this is not about any specific edition at all. I would very much prefer to go back to discussing the pros and cons of world building. If you cannot couch your argument without referring to an edition, fork the thread and take it elsewhere.

I'm not referring to 4E or any version of D&D at all in my response. Just that there are two different activities calling themselves roleplaying, one is the vast majority of what we historically know as RPGs and the other more commonly referred to as Storygames. They are as different as fire drills and community theatre.

 

[Ariosto]

I have voiced opinions about what Madonna plays, but the "jazz" radio programmers and the "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame disagree.

I have certainly not said that someone playing differently is not playing D&D. The vagueness as to what that might mean in 1977 was nothing next to the confusion in 2009.

Hussar, I cannot believe that you don't grasp the difference between an environment in which many events are occurring and a singular story with a linear plot-line.

Your notion that the DM always has "his adventure" in the first place is parochial. As I have said repeatedly, what are appropriate means may depend upon one's ends. You, however, seem not to admit the traditional D&D campaign as a legitimate end.

So be it. I and others have pointed out the returns we find on investment in what you would call "world building but not setting building." I have observed that I see such benefits even in running plot-driven games.

Our methods may not suit you, but they have proven useful in long experience. What you hope to gain by hurling hyperbole at us is beyond me.

 

[Hussar]

Of course not. Folks are free to make House Rules. That's what homebrewing is. Just realize that what they are doing is game design, not playing the game.

I'm not referring to 4E or any version of D&D at all in my response. Just that there are two different activities calling themselves roleplaying, one is the vast majority of what we historically know as RPGs and the other more commonly referred to as Storygames. They are as different as fire drills and community theatre.

Sorry HowandWhy, that last bit wasn't directed at you at all. I know you didn't reference any other edition in your post. That's groovy. There are a few though who seem to want to start banging this as an edition specific thing (cue references to 2e and the like) and I was hoping to nip that in the bud.

Back to the topic.

We're not going to agree on this. Your definition of what a role playing game consists of is just so alien to my experience that I cannot find any common ground in which to hold a discourse. To claim that story based games are somehow not role playing while traditional RPG's are is something I just cannot comment on. I'm quite frankly speechless.

And here I thought I was being all ambitious trying to redefine world building vs setting construction. Damn, you leave me humbled.

 

[Hussar]

I have voiced opinions about what Madonna plays, but the "jazz" radio programmers and the "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame disagree.

I have certainly not said that someone playing differently is not playing D&D. The vagueness as to what that might mean in 1977 was nothing next to the confusion in 2009.

Hussar, I cannot believe that you don't grasp the difference between an environment in which many events are occurring and a singular story with a linear plot-line.

Your notion that the DM always has "his adventure" in the first place is parochial. As I have said repeatedly, what are appropriate means may depend upon one's ends. You, however, seem not to admit the traditional D&D campaign as a legitimate end.

So be it. I and others have pointed out the returns we find on investment in what you would call "world building but not setting building." I have observed that I see such benefits even in running plot-driven games.

Our methods may not suit you, but they have proven useful in long experience. What you hope to gain by hurling hyperbole at us is beyond me.

Holy crap.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Go back to the top of this page, or maybe one page back and READ THE SUMMARY I made of this idea.

In there I specifically state EXACTLY what you are saying. That this is better suited for some kinds of games. That I think this makes for better games is simply my opinion, just like yours.

I realize it was a bit of a wall of text, but good grief, if you're going to continually take me to task over something, at least have the decency to read it first.

I NEVER SAID THIS WAS THE ONLY WAY TO DO THINGS.

I did say that I thought this was a better way than the traditional way of doing things. Good grief, what do you expect. "Hrm, I have this new idea for how you can create campaigns. It's not as good as what you're doing now, but, please, take time out of your day to read my ideas and critique".

Seriously? That's what I should be saying?

 

[Hussar]

Hey, 'cos I'm a nice guy, here's the Linky to my summary of my points. Feel free to critique, but, please, can we leave the mindless semantic debates at the door?

 

[howandwhy99]

Sorry HowandWhy, that last bit wasn't directed at you at all. I know you didn't reference any other edition in your post. That's groovy. There are a few though who seem to want to start banging this as an edition specific thing (cue references to 2e and the like) and I was hoping to nip that in the bud.

Back to the topic.

We're not going to agree on this. Your definition of what a role playing game consists of is just so alien to my experience that I cannot find any common ground in which to hold a discourse. To claim that story based games are somehow not role playing while traditional RPG's are is something I just cannot comment on. I'm quite frankly speechless.

And here I thought I was being all ambitious trying to redefine world building vs setting construction. Damn, you leave me humbled.

You seem like a nice guy Hussar, so I'll let you in on a little information. Probably too early for me to really release this yet, but it does help in what I'm trying to explain. It helps (however slightly) to illuminate the difference between what roleplaying in a theatre is versus "roleplaying simulation". That's a specific term newly minted in the last 10-15 years by sociologists to refer to the type of roleplaying from which D&D (and our hobby) was originally termed.

Here's the link which helps explain some of the major differences between the two models of RPG design. Can you guess which one is traditional design and which is storygame RPG design (i.e. big model theory)?

One hint: RPGs turned pretty crappy in the 90's when they tried to include plotlines and stories into RPGs. This was a "bad idea" as RPGs under the most widely known definition (outside our hobby anyways) did not lend itself to plots and stories. But Storygames have sought to change that. They view roleplaying as the very act of conveying a story collaboratively. But they also use a very narrow configuration of roleplaying group role assignation in order to attain their overall definition and corresponding theory which all follows from it (basically they were looking for improv theatre)

Originally RPGs were not storytelling games at all. They were, and are, guessing games. And strategy and tactics were relevant to the actions one was performing, not to the choice of rule to enact.

 

[Imaro]

Hey, 'cos I'm a nice guy, here's the Linky to my summary of my points. Feel free to critique, but, please, can we leave the mindless semantic debates at the door?

I'm your Huckleberry...

Background

Some time ago I got tied into a rather lengthy thread about world building and whether it was a good or bad thing. That thread's been linked earlier in this thread if you really want to read it. One of the points that I tried to get across is that world building and setting construction are not synonymous.

The reason for this is setting is required in all texts, but world building is not. Setting at its most basic, is defined as where the plot occurs. Setting, by definition is absolutely intertwined with plot. Whether the setting is very sparse or detailed doesn't really matter - so long as the action of the story occurs there, it's setting. World building, on the other hand, is not required by a text. Waiting for Godot has a featureless plain and a bench for the entire setting. I don't think anyone would call that world building.

So, in my mind, there is a distinction between setting and world building. World building is defined as an attempt, in as much detail as possible, to create a complete fictional world. It is not tied to plot. It is an activity unto itself.

Now, bring that back to RPG's and suddenly all the world building advice you get in most RPG books takes on a different cast. If world building is an activity unto itself, is it particularly necessary to create a good campaign? In my view, no it is not.

Not that it can't be. Please, please don't think that I'm claiming that you can't do it that way. Obviously that's not true. One only has to look at Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or any other published setting and numerous fan based ones as well to know that you most certainly can.

Again for the record I think your defining of world-building vs. setting-building is fundamentally flawed in numerous ways. The largest being it assumes only one type of campaign and that is the scripted campaign. You see honestly this, IMO, is the biggest flaw with your method in comparison to world-building... it's not universally applicable. How do I construct a sand-box style campaign, where the PC's have a wide-berth of true choices without eventually designing somewhere, something or someone that is not and may never be relevant to the current action? It's impossible. In world-building nothing stops me from catering to a scripted campaign... more energy, sure. Wasted effort, perhaps. But I can still create a scripted campaign through world-building... what I can't do is create a sand-box campaign from setting-building (as you define it).

But, I do think there is another approach.

So, there, enough of that. Let's get to the meat of things. The pros and cons of this approach.

1. One strength is that by starting the campaign in cooperation with the players is that the players are already egaged by the campaign. They have a stake in the campaign before it even starts since they have helped create it. Instead of being passive consumers of the campaign, picking from the menu created by the DM, they are active participants before they've even picked up the dice to create a character.

The disadvantage of this is the DM has to cede some authorial control over the campaign. If the players are going to have a stake in the campaign, then the DM can no longer simply do whatever he thinks is right. And, this does constrain the choices the DM has as well. If the group decides that they want to explore themes X and Y, the DM will have difficulty bringing in Z without consulting the players at all.

As I have said earlier in this thread, there are numerous disadvantages in using this method with both new and casual players. A casual player probably will not desire to put in any effort towards creating a world...they just want to play, and may even resent being forced to help do what they perceive as the "DM's job". A new player on the other hand is probably best served by just getting to play first before being thrust into campaign design... not the other way around. Though I will admit I see nothing wrong with this method for experienced players, but then it's not universally applicable is it?

Finally an even bigger disadvantage, IMO, is that it can, at least partly, ruin some or all of the surprise and wonder from any player who actually might be interested in discovery and exploration while playing the game. For some it could be akin to a magician having them help set up everything to work before a magic show...and thus learning at least some of what is going to happen in the show and how the tricks are performed and then having to watch the show. Will the show still be enjoyable? For many or even most probably so... but for many it will also be diminished.

2. Less work load for the DM. This is pretty obvious. If you aren't going to spend time detailing the setting beyond elements that fit with the campaign that you and your players have discussed before hand, then you are not going to do as much work as the DM who has to create an entire country or more.

The downside of this, again, is a limit on the freedom of the players. That's true. Now, since the players have already bought into this campaign, that shouldn't be a huge issue - if we've decided as a group that the campaign is going to follow the adventures of a mercenary group during a war between elves and dwarves, player's shouldn't be complaining that they can't start dragon hunting. But, it is a limitation of scope at the outset.

Honestly, IMO, I think that limitation is usually done by DM's anyway. Most DM's are going to have some rough idea of what the campaign is going to be about before play starts, so, I'm not sure how much more constraining this is.

I think you make a big assumptions here, there's constraining...First adventure will be the Pits o' Doom, second will be the Dread Swamp, etc... and there's less constraining...Let's see they don't have horses so they can probably travel about five days out at most, let's see they could explore the Pits o' Doom or the Dread Swamp and Elkin Village, etc. Your method seems to fall apart in the second example and you basically admit as much in the above post... so can I ask how is this better if it is more restraining and doesn't really cover a particular playstyle well?

Also it doesn't help your argument to assume " Most DM's are going to have some rough idea of what the campaign is going to be about before play starts". Your making assumptions that you can't back up to strengthen your argument...but it doesn't.

3. Better ties between players, characters and the campaign. Since everyone is already on board before you even start the campaign, you won't have the "random band of misfits meet in a bar" syndrome that plagues many campaigns. The players are already on board, so they should be making characters that not only fit with each other, but with the campaign itself.

You won't have players accidentally sidelining themselves because of miscommunications between the DM and the players over what the campaign is about. The players, hopefully since they had a hand in getting the campaign off the ground, have a pretty good idea of what the campaign is about already and should make characters that fit with that.

Again, the downside here is the DM has to trust his players and relax his grip on the campaign. Since the players had a hand in campaign creation, it is quite possible that they might pick elements that the DM may not 100% like but, is likely going to have to accept. Not that this will happen automatically, but, it certainly could.

Some sort of mechanism would need to be in place beforehand to resolve conflicts between aesthetic choices. Simple voting in the group might work..

I don't even see how this in any way supports your method over worldbuilding and just seems like a problem that can arise in any campaign if the DM and players lack communication.

Having the same themes and your characters goals in mind can just as readily lead to "misfits in an inn"... as reading blurbs on countries and coming up with characters tied to each other through the alliances of those countries can lead to cohesion. Inherently it has nothing to do with setting-building or world-building but group communication.

I honestly see one big disadvantage here you seem to be overlooking, the fact that things must be pre-decided. Before you even get to play a character or run an adventure, everyone has a set theme, set goals, set everything... now to me that's limiting. Not only that, what happens if these themes or goals end up being unfun or you decide you want to change them after a few sessions... yet the DM has crafted the entirety of the campaign around focusing on them.

I find it much better to let players explore what exactly they want from a game through play and the organic evolution of their characters. Give them a world with broad strokes and let the PC's discover what kind of adventures, themes and goals they want to create through play.

4. This one is both a plus and a minus at the same time. The campaign is going to be tighter. It just is. The players and the DM are all on the same page at the outset (or should be) which means that the campaign is going to be much more focused than a standard campaign. This is good in that I think that it will result in deeper role play - less time spent screwing around and more time spent exploring the pre-defined themes. On the downside, it will likely result in shorter campaigns since, once your finished exploring this theme, you're done. To be honest, I think this style of campaign design lends itself more to narrative (gack I hate Forgisms) style play where exploring themes and concepts is more important than simulating or systems.

I call bull on this...all of it.

When given the freedom to let their characters grow organically and without the artificial restraints of script, pre-planned plot, and pre-determined themes and goals... players will engage in deeper and more meaningful roleplay as their characters are no longer restrained to exploring pre-defined aspects of the campaign world. The game will be tighter because the PC's have what feels like a real, living world to interact with and their actions can have unforseen consequences thus choices must be considered carefully. There will be less time spent screwing around and more time spent interacting and engaging with the world, in a naturalistic fashion, as a whole and all it contains. It will likely result in longer campaigns as, just like in real life, the themes and goals being explored will change, mature and grow as the characters and the world do. To be honest I think this style of campaign can lend itself to both narrative and simulationism... depending upon which the players and GM decide to explore.

See how easy that was? Not saying I necessarily agree with everything above, but it's all subjective anyway.

So, there you have it. The giant wall of text. Perhaps I should have written this several pages ago, but it took me this long to work it out in my own head. Whatcha think?

Well I still believe your method of campaign design isn't as good in a general sense as world-building... but if it works for you and your group then more power to you.