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

[Ariosto]

If the players choose to completely ignore the plot (the Savage Tide is coming), they can certainly do so. But, then the world will be destroyed. ... I've got someone in this thread telling me that having any over arching storyline is equal to railroading. That having a doom cult in your game is automatically railroading.

Far from it. "The (1st level?) PCs had better not die, because they're somehow the only ones who can save the world" is not just any storyline with a doom cult. And you're arguing against there being much of a world to save anyway. So, yeah, you're not exactly running the Louisville & Nashville Sandbox.

 

[roguerouge]

The DM builds the setting. The players build the world by interacting with the setting.

 

[Raven Crowking]

These are examples of lousy GMing, for sure, but they're not arguments for or against world building - they're arguments for putting a moment of thought in your adventure building!

Yes, but, specifically, that "moment of thought in your adventure building" is what (I suspect) 90% of the folks in this thread consider an integral part of world-building. Moreover, since the DM has no way to determine what the players will find interesting (bar railroading), the DM has no predetermined way to know exactly what is going to be needed in his adventure building. His adventure building must perforce include world-building to cover at least the most likely angles the PCs wil take, the motivations of his NPCs, and (again, bar railroading) some idea as to what is off the map of his particular adventure should the PCs head for parts unknown.

Re: the thieve's guild example, for instance, simply because the players have no interest in following up on the guild, it doesn't follow that the guild has no interest in following up on them. Moreover, players do funny things. If you wait for the players to tell you they want to rob the casino ala Oceans Eleven before you flesh the casino out, you may very well end up being accused of not putting a "moment of thought in your adventure building" when you thought that the adventure was going to be investigating the old ruins outside of town, rather than the casino/thieve's guild inside of town.

Bar railroading.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar,

Have you considered that the reason your players telegraph everything to you is because they know they need to? Whereas with (some) other DMs, the players do not feel so constrained?

In the past, you have called yourself a lazy DM, and have said that, should you attempt to limit your player's race/class options they would laugh you away from the table (or words to that effect), indicating that they would oust you from the DM's chair. Have you considered that these two things may be linked? That your lack of preparedness may lead directly to a lack of compelling narative, which in turn makes your players willing to discard your DMing for what seems to be (to me) a pretty minor reason?

IOW, I very much doubt that your experience re: no worldbuilding is something that I would use as a firm foundation for advising other DMs.


RC

 

[Imaro]

I dunno. Maybe it's because I talk to my players frequently outside of game time. If they want to do something completely ninety degrees from what they were planning on doing, they give me a heads up beforehand.

To me, that's just being a good player. I would certainly never expect to be able to sit down at someone's game, when they were expecting me to do X and totally blindside them with Y and then expect them to be able to run the game.

For example, my current players are on the Isle of Dread. Now, they have a ship, so they could leave the island. But, they've stated that they want to stay on the island and explore for while. Now, if they were to sit down at the table next week and then say, "Oh, hey, I want to sail to the Pomarj" I gotta admit, I'd be a bit annoyed.

I certainly would never do that to any DM and expect him to be able to immediately cater to my whims.

First off I don't think it has anything to do with being a "good" player. I want my players to take initiative and I don't want them to be limited to my "story". Have you ever considered that the reason your players going off track annoys you is because you haven't built enough of the world out to account for it? Also that while your group may be fine playing in the mode you describe, others enjoy a more free-form environment.

And I don't think you have to go that far. You can still do a long story arc without doing a lot of world building. You can even do sandbox games without a lot of world building (if the sandbox is pretty sparce ).

Yes you can, and you can also do it with worldbuilding and no "story". Neither is necessary for enjoyment to the game, However either method can enhance, when used properly, or work to the detriment of the game when used poorly.

And I totally agree with this point. You've said it much better than I could. Thank you. I guess it's because I've been forced by people continuously misrepresenting what I'm saying that I feel I have to overstate things or people just start taking things in a completely different direction.

I mean, I've got someone in this thread telling me that having any over arching storyline is equal to railroading. That having a doom cult in your game is automatically railroading. I guess I feel that if I don't overstate and be bloody pedantic about it, too many people start playing silly buggers.

Hussar, perhaps it is your continuous efforts in trying to represent worldbuilding in the most negative light possible, in order to better prove your point, that has, in turn, made most go to the extreme negative of "story" based games. In my original post I said neither was, IMO, "better" yet you seemed intent on informing the worldbuilders what a waste their efforts and work are... even when you've been presented with reasons why this method, as opposed to yours, works for them. This I think is what irritates and annoys people when discussing this subject with you.

 

[Kask]

Well, when all is said and done, fully developed game worlds sell well. Must be a lot of DMs out there using them...

 

[Storminator]

I've never seen anyone, anywhere, ever suggest that detailing all 20,000 members of the Temple of Bhab right down to the details of their pocket lint and what their first beloved pet's name was is a requirement for good GMing.

Setting that up as what you are deriding is a strawman arguement, and not a very good one, because you're not fooling anyone.

Please don't set up a strawman and deride strawman arguments in consecutive paragraphs.

However what you seem to be saying is that any GM is a fool who details anything beyond what he knows the PCs will interact with, and to the minimum degree required is a fool who is obsessed with self indulgent wankery to the detriment of his game, and if that is indeed what you are saying, it's just dead wrong.

Why? Because Councilor A with no living familly is a damm sight different from councilor B with an estranged wife, a scheming mistress, a daughter he dotes on and a mad father locked up in a room in his manor. Any or all of whom the PCs might get a notion to interact with, but only if they exist. Even if the PCs interact with none of them the NPC is still going to behave differently because he has people to be wary of and to protect that will make him behave differently from councilor A who never has to worry about loved ones becoming hostages.

I'm pretty sure Hussar would detail all those things about Councilor B. He wouldn't do it because it makes a vibrant world tho. I imagine it would go more along the lines of:

It's going to be a story of political intrigue and desperate action. It needs some characters... the king, some councilors, the nobility, some servants, some prominent freemen, some diplomats... let's get those guys detailed. Hmmmm, we'll need to detail the castle, because that's where most of the action is... maybe a quiet tavern on the far side of town where an insider... how about Councilor B... will set up a secret meeting. What's he like? Better have that worked out, he'll be a big mover in this game. Why is he choosing that tavern? Better have those answers...

etc.

There's no way to get everything down, so focus where the biggest needs are.

PS

 

[billd91]

A lot of the posts in this thread are only contrasting opposite extremes of hi-fi-worldbuilding vs. no-worldbuilding. In reality, I think there's a spectrum.

Indeed. And all that "campaign building" that's not supposed to be world building? It's all world-building. Think of anything in advance of the players at the table, perhaps while you're own mowing the lawn and thinking about your game? World building.

But no matter how much the DM engages in world building, if the lack of it or poor use of it hurts the game, then it's poor DMing. Plain and simple.

 

[Imaro]

....



I'm pretty sure Hussar would detail all those things about Councilor B. He wouldn't do it because it makes a vibrant world tho. I imagine it would go more along the lines of:

It's going to be a story of political intrigue and desperate action. It needs some characters... the king, some councilors, the nobility, some servants, some prominent freemen, some diplomats... let's get those guys detailed. Hmmmm, we'll need to detail the castle, because that's where most of the action is... maybe a quiet tavern on the far side of town where an insider... how about Councilor B... will set up a secret meeting. What's he like? Better have that worked out, he'll be a big mover in this game. Why is he choosing that tavern? Better have those answers...

etc.

There's no way to get everything down, so focus where the biggest needs are.

PS

By Hussar's own admission, he would only detail these things if ...

A. The players come to him before the actual session and say "Hey, Hussar were going to interact (in whatever way) with the councilors... or

B. Hussar's "story" plans for the PC's to interact with the councilors in a specific way which makes the information important to the plot.

However there is the simple fact that the PC's could choose to interact with the councilors outside of either of these. As an example, what if the councilor hires the PC's to retrieve an item and after retrieving it the PC's decide to extort more money from the councilor and in order to do so, mercenaries that they are, decide to kidnap a family member or person of importance to the councillor during play?

I can agree with the sentiment that... "There's no way to get everything down, so focus where the biggest needs are." but this is neither here nor there when it comes to worldbuilding or "story"-building.

Using the storybuilding methodology as your basis, what is constructed is based purely around what you pre-suppose the PC's will do and interact with... while in worldbuilding (especially using a bottom-up design) it is focused not on what you think the PC's will do but on what they can and should be able to interact with in the span of actual play.

 

[Hussar]

Well, when all is said and done, fully developed game worlds sell well. Must be a lot of DMs out there using them...

Now here is a bit of a different kettle of fish. DM's I think are willing to buy lots of setting stuff, because they like to read it. Not that they necessarily use it in their game. I know I used to be like this. Used to buy every supplement I could get my hands on because I liked to read about the setting.

Then I realized that 99% of the material I had, I read once and never used. That's when my attitude towards this sort of thing changed. I used to agree wholeheartedly with a lot of the posters here that if you were going to run a good campaign, you had to do all this background work first. I've got binders and binders of this sort of thing taking up space on my shelves.

Or, rather, I used to.

Look, maybe I'm stating it too strongly, that's fine. I'm just trying to point out that the common wisdom that you have to do this sort of thing isn't quite (IMNSHO) true. That you don't need to spend that much time doing world building before you start a campaign. That the time you spend world building might be better spent (see the conditional there? Everyone happy) in detailing the events of the campaign, rather than on detailing elements that only the DM sees.

The thieves guild that the party never interacts with doesn't matter. Unless you have flowcharts and spreadsheets to calculate how the guild affects business over time, it has zero impact on the campaign, unless the DM or the players make it so.

Again, totally my opinion. It's a bit late and I'm a few beers downrange, so, hey, take it for what it is.

Please don't set up a strawman and deride strawman arguments in consecutive paragraphs.



I'm pretty sure Hussar would detail all those things about Councilor B. He wouldn't do it because it makes a vibrant world tho. I imagine it would go more along the lines of:

It's going to be a story of political intrigue and desperate action. It needs some characters... the king, some councilors, the nobility, some servants, some prominent freemen, some diplomats... let's get those guys detailed. Hmmmm, we'll need to detail the castle, because that's where most of the action is... maybe a quiet tavern on the far side of town where an insider... how about Councilor B... will set up a secret meeting. What's he like? Better have that worked out, he'll be a big mover in this game. Why is he choosing that tavern? Better have those answers...

etc.

There's no way to get everything down, so focus where the biggest needs are.

PS

Bingo. The basic (at least) details of the councilors is going to come up in the game. Any DM who makes the slightest effort knows that that's true. However, in the example of the one councilor's estranged wife, how is that going to come up unless the DM specifically dangles it in front of the players?

Do your players regularly ask if the councilors are having marital difficulties?

Indeed. And all that "campaign building" that's not supposed to be world building? It's all world-building. Think of anything in advance of the players at the table, perhaps while you're own mowing the lawn and thinking about your game? World building.

But no matter how much the DM engages in world building, if the lack of it or poor use of it hurts the game, then it's poor DMing. Plain and simple.

I see what you're saying and by and large I agree. My personal problem, and i realize that this drum is getting a bit worn is that folding world building in with setting construction makes setting meaningless. To me, world building is an activity that is divorced from plot. To me, world building is an activity which is pursued for its own end and its own goals - specifically to create in as great of detail as possible, an imaginary world.

Again, I think this is probably why we're having such a difficulty coming to a consensus because I think a lot of people in this thread are not making a distinction between world building and setting building.

So, if I accept your definition of world building as any activity related to the creation of setting, then yes, we are in 100% agreement.