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

[Hussar]

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?

Ok, again, if your players are dropping this bomb on you with absolutely no warning, there's a larger issue here. If the players are going to completely abandon the campaign, whatever stories they happen to be working on at the time, completely ignore all other issues going on in the campaign, to blindside you with this, and then expect you to be able to come up with this sort of information on the spot, then you have some issues that go above and beyond world building.

I mean, it's perfectly fine for the players to change stuff and start pursuing new goals and whatnot, that's groovy. And, to completely blindside you with no warning is fine as well. But, to completely blindside you AND expect you to have all the details beforehand is unrealistic IMO. Never mind blindsiding you completely and then expecting you to be able to come up with an entire session, with no preparation, no warning, is far and above what I would ever expect from any DM.

So, if we're playing a high court intrigue game, we're several sessions into it, we've developed relationships with numerous NPC's and really delved into the campaign, and one day, with no warning, the players decide to leave the kingdom to head to a completely different kingdom, you see no problem with that?

 

[S'mon]

So, if we're playing a high court intrigue game, we're several sessions into it, we've developed relationships with numerous NPC's and really delved into the campaign, and one day, with no warning, the players decide to leave the kingdom to head to a completely different kingdom, you see no problem with that?

If I don't have the other kingdom detailed, I guess i'd hit the PCs with enough random encounters to last the session and get it prepped for next time.

 

[Raven Crowking]

To me, world building is an activity that is divorced from plot.

If by "plot" you mean "things that interact with the PCs" I wonder if this sort of world-building has ever existed. I suppose, within the confines of a static world, it might. Even if the DM is thinking about species of insects in the campaign world, I imagine that he is doing so because he wants cool, immersive descriptions while the PCs are tromping through the woods.....or crunching through a buggy crypt.

In other words, this is the creation of what you are calling "setting". The "setting" is the world. Building the setting is building the world. They are the same thing.

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.

I would be curious what you think the distinction between world building and setting building actually is.

From your above quote, it seems that you believe world-building is any activity which creates setting, but for which said setting is not intended to be used in the game.

I think we can safely agree that if "said setting is not intended to be used in the game" that there is a reasonably good (but not absolute) chance that the work performed will not impact the game one way or the other. In this case, the world-builder is engaging in a hobby tangential to, but not actually the same as, playing the game......and we would not wish to tell people what hobbies they may or may not engage in on their own time, would we? Well, within reason, anyway.

The way I see it is, you're stuck between:

A) Bob is creating material for the game (world-building) that will be used in the game (and therefore, by your terms, setting-building), and

B) Bob is creating material not for the game (also world-building, but presumably not setting-building)

In the case of (A) one wonders what you have to complain about. And, in past threads, you have complained about factors that clearly fell into (A).

In the case of (B), the only things that you might have to complain about (AFAICT) are (a) Bob is spending time on his own interests rather than yours, and/or (b) Bob is wasting time on something he doesn't enjoy because he believes he must (addicted, psychotic, what-have-you).

If (a), then, frankly, you are not Bob's friend, and he should not be running games for you. If (b), and only if (b), an intervention is in order.

Because we have established that some degree of world-building is necessary to reasonably develop setting, the questions related to (b) are

(i) Should Bob be DMing at all? If Bob is doing reasonable world-building, but just isn't enjoying it, perhaps he should simply be a player. There is no point in having a hobby one does not enjoy.

(ii) Is Bob simply doing ineffective world-building? This can be a real problem and is, I think, a source of much of the anti-world-building sentiment in this thread. And this can be the result of crunch as well as fluff. Bob wants to create the pirates' base camp, but he becomes enmired within the minutia of the proper hardness and hit points of the doors, the correct falling damage for each pit, the necessary DC for each task based upon a lot of fiddling calculations (3e, I am staring right at you!).

In the case of (ii), saying "World-building is bad!" doesn't help anyone. A dialogue about what might be more effective/efficient methods of tackling the task of creating a coherent setting without becoming bogged down in minutia, on the other hand, is of great potential value.


RC

 

[Imaro]

Ok, again, if your players are dropping this bomb on you with absolutely no warning, there's a larger issue here. If the players are going to completely abandon the campaign, whatever stories they happen to be working on at the time, completely ignore all other issues going on in the campaign, to blindside you with this, and then expect you to be able to come up with this sort of information on the spot, then you have some issues that go above and beyond world building.

I mean, it's perfectly fine for the players to change stuff and start pursuing new goals and whatnot, that's groovy. And, to completely blindside you with no warning is fine as well. But, to completely blindside you AND expect you to have all the details beforehand is unrealistic IMO. Never mind blindsiding you completely and then expecting you to be able to come up with an entire session, with no preparation, no warning, is far and above what I would ever expect from any DM.

So, if we're playing a high court intrigue game, we're several sessions into it, we've developed relationships with numerous NPC's and really delved into the campaign, and one day, with no warning, the players decide to leave the kingdom to head to a completely different kingdom, you see no problem with that?

What you are missing is that it's only an "issue" if you prepare for the game like you do (pre-supposing that the PC's should do things). I don't think it's an issue or a problem for my players to think and take actions outside "the box"... you apparently do. I don't need to have everything laid out (that's the extreme view), but to increase our enjoyment I want to have a firm base for the world (those things the PC's may choose to interact with) so that the consequences, results, etc. of their actions are logical and consistent. The easiest way for me to do this is to create an environment as opposed to a particular story based world, because the PC's could always want to switch it up... even if it's just for a little while or a change of pace... or even just to see what happens.

Side Note: Lately I have been playing Fable 2 on Xbox 360, and I often find myself doing things only tangentially related to the main storyline (buying shops and homes, rescuing slaves, taking care of my family, finding artifacts, gambling, competing in contests, or just exploring)... other times I play along with the main plot (finding the remaining heroes to head out to Castle Fairfax and defeat the viillain), but it's a richer experience for having these options available.

 

[Storminator]

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.

I think you're reading his statements in an ungenerous light.

1) He's said he's not railroading his players. Take that to mean that there's flexibility in the story of his campaign.

2) He's said he prepared for his story.

Combine 1 & 2, and take that to mean he's got enough elements detailed to handle some variations in the story. He can roll with the PCs deciding to kidnap the councilor's wife, because it's a reasonable stretch of the story. He's not ready for his PCs to go to the dock, buy a warship, head to sea and become pirates based out of a jungle island, because that's not a variation in the story, it's wholesale abandonment.

I'm guessing you already have a jungle island ready.

PS

 

[Hussar]

If I don't have the other kingdom detailed, I guess i'd hit the PCs with enough random encounters to last the session and get it prepped for next time.

Heh, honestly, I'd likely do the same thing.

Really though, is a random encounter table world buildling?

What you are missing is that it's only an "issue" if you prepare for the game like you do (pre-supposing that the PC's should do things). I don't think it's an issue or a problem for my players to think and take actions outside "the box"... you apparently do. I don't need to have everything laid out (that's the extreme view), but to increase our enjoyment I want to have a firm base for the world (those things the PC's may choose to interact with) so that the consequences, results, etc. of their actions are logical and consistent. The easiest way for me to do this is to create an environment as opposed to a particular story based world, because the PC's could always want to switch it up... even if it's just for a little while or a change of pace... or even just to see what happens.

Side Note: Lately I have been playing Fable 2 on Xbox 360, and I often find myself doing things only tangentially related to the main storyline (buying shops and homes, rescuing slaves, taking care of my family, finding artifacts, gambling, competing in contests, or just exploring)... other times I play along with the main plot (finding the remaining heroes to head out to Castle Fairfax and defeat the viillain), but it's a richer experience for having these options available.

Hey, I like exploration as much as the next person. That's fine. But, again, it also has its place.

I'm taking your example as you presented it. The players with no warning, and no preamble, suddenly abandon everything they've built up to go off and do something else on a whim.

See, I build campaigns where that sort of thing is going to have major consequences. If you suddenly abandon something, that means that probably someone's dastardly plot is going to succeed. If you completely abandon the plot to find the traitor councilor, if and when you return to this kingdom, the king is likely going to be dead and the councilor succeeded in his plot because you didn't stop him.

I find that most players don't like that. They want to have some idea that they have an effect on the world. That their actions mean something.

You seem to be saying that it's perfectly okay to abandon the princess that got snatched by the dragon to go off and poke around somewhere else.

Do you just put the plots on hold CRPG style? The players can basically operate independently of any sort of in game clock?

Or do your campaigns have no plots whatsoever, beyond what the players cook up for themselves?

I'm not trying to be snarky or obnoxious here. I really don't understand. If it's perfectly okay to abandon storylines, then it follows that these storylines don't advance when the players are off doing something else. Either that or there simply aren't any storylines at all.

In my games, there will generally be several storylines, some player generated, some generated by me, but all of them advance by time. If the players choose to do X and not Y, Y doesn't simply wait around for the players to come, Y continues until it either resolves itself or the players get involved. If they choose to do X and then abandon X to do Y, X also continues on from that point.

To give an example from my current campaign. I have the Isle of Dread. There is a colony on the island called Farshore. Very soon there will be an election to select the mayor of Farshore. Whichever candidate wins will have a serious impact on how things play out later in the campaign. At the same time, the players need to do a number of other activities to prepare the town for various threats that they know about. In addition, the players want to expand their own trading company, explore the Island, discover a few other tidbits and deal with some issues that have been ongoing for a while.

In other words, they are really, really busy.

If the players came to me next week and told me that they were abandoning Farshore to head to another island, I would consider it a pretty big failure on my part for not selling the campaign to them, but, I would go with it. Probably with some random encounters to buy time

But, the plots that are ongoing on the Island certainly aren't going to stop while they head to another island.

 

[Witty Comeback]

The way I see it is, you're stuck between:

A) Bob is creating material for the game (world-building) that will be used in the game (and therefore, by your terms, setting-building), and

B) Bob is creating material not for the game (also world-building, but presumably not setting-building)

In the case of (A) one wonders what you have to complain about. And, in past threads, you have complained about factors that clearly fell into (A).

In the case of (B), the only things that you might have to complain about (AFAICT) are (a) Bob is spending time on his own interests rather than yours, and/or (b) Bob is wasting time on something he doesn't enjoy because he believes he must (addicted, psychotic, what-have-you).

If (a), then, frankly, you are not Bob's friend, and he should not be running games for you. If (b), and only if (b), an intervention is in order.

While I agree about (A) and (B), there is a third concern. (c): As a player in Bob's game, I find that he is not prepared with (A) during sessions, and too much with (B). Meaning, he has extensive lists of insects and elvish histories etc. but has failed to prepare adequately for the PCs actually interacting with the game world. In my opinion, that seems like a valid concern about Bob's game.

 

[Storminator]

You seem to be saying that it's perfectly okay to abandon the princess that got snatched by the dragon to go off and poke around somewhere else.

Do you just put the plots on hold CRPG style? The players can basically operate independently of any sort of in game clock?

Or do your campaigns have no plots whatsoever, beyond what the players cook up for themselves?

Where did you get that from?!

I'm not trying to be snarky or obnoxious here. I really don't understand. If it's perfectly okay to abandon storylines, then it follows that these storylines don't advance when the players are off doing something else. Either that or there simply aren't any storylines at all.

Or maybe they abandon storylines, and things come unglued, but the PCs are off doing something else. When they return, the world has evolved, and circumstances are different.

In my games, there will generally be several storylines, some player generated, some generated by me, but all of them advance by time. If the players choose to do X and not Y, Y doesn't simply wait around for the players to come, Y continues until it either resolves itself or the players get involved. If they choose to do X and then abandon X to do Y, X also continues on from that point.

To give an example from my current campaign. I have the Isle of Dread. There is a colony on the island called Farshore. Very soon there will be an election to select the mayor of Farshore. Whichever candidate wins will have a serious impact on how things play out later in the campaign. At the same time, the players need to do a number of other activities to prepare the town for various threats that they know about. In addition, the players want to expand their own trading company, explore the Island, discover a few other tidbits and deal with some issues that have been ongoing for a while.

In other words, they are really, really busy.

If the players came to me next week and told me that they were abandoning Farshore to head to another island, I would consider it a pretty big failure on my part for not selling the campaign to them, but, I would go with it. Probably with some random encounters to buy time

But, the plots that are ongoing on the Island certainly aren't going to stop while they head to another island.

I think the only difference is Imaro doesn't have to buy time, because he's got another island detailed already.

PS

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I mostly agree with Hussar. I think there is a fine line between "enhancing the campaign" with world building and just making up useless facts. As an example:

DM: "You are walking through the Darken Woods which are just to the west of the country of Duval, a kingdom ruled by the benevolent king, Rakos. The day is bright and cheery as the light from the twin suns, Lorar and Loram shine through the canopy. You pass by large amounts of Iraram bushes on your way to deliver the strangely colored purple box to..."
Player 1: "Umm, what are Iraram bushes?"
DM: "They are a bush that blossoms with dark blue colored berries that are edible. They blossom in the spring."
Player 1: "So, they are blueberry bushes?"
DM: "Similar, yes. But there are no blueberries in my world, it is a fantasy world."
Player 1: "Right...so they are blueberry bushes."
DM: "Sure, whatever. So, you are walking through the woods when you spot a small pile of rocks colored red, with a skull of a wolf on top of it. You know that this is a common sign for the Orc tribe the Wolfskulls. They use it to mark the edges of their territory. Legend has it that the young of their tribe have to fight a wolf in hand to hand combat in order to become one of the tribe."

Which is very descriptive. But it required a good 20 minutes to think of all of those details just now. And it would have lasted a couple of minutes of actual game time.

Contrast that to:

DM: "You are going through the woods on your way to deliver a purple colored box to a town on the other side of the woods as you were asked to. You were promised 20 gp each upon completion of the mission and asked not to open it. As you walk, you see a signpost that means you've just entered Orc territory."

I'm just of the belief that the amount of time required to come up with all of those world details isn't worth the payoff. I know when a DM starts going into that much detail, I start drifting off and don't pay much attention to it anyway.

 

[Jack7]

This seems a lot to me like a Why Does the World Exist debate. Or at least a corollary. Without knowing why the world exists it is hard to formulate a structure for the proper expression of it.

If the world has a purpose other than just a place in which to adventure, then it has to be well developed and "powerful" enough to make an impression on the characters (and by extension the players) so that they understand they have an environment in which to work that is more important than their own interests. Therefore world building is ultimately more important than the individual characters who inhabit it. It doesn't really matter whether the world is fully developed (and what world is ever fully developed, it's like saying our world is fully developed, our world is only fully developed at this moment in time based upon what we know, in twenty to fifty years there will be a different world with different developments, just as the beginning of the 20th Century seems like an almost completely different world than the beginning of the 21st century) or not at the beginning of play in it, the point is that it is the world that makes demands upon the players and characters, and not the other way around. It's not the specific degree of complexity of development, it is the degree of impression those developments make upon the players and characters, or not.

On the other hand if the world exists to service the characters or the characters and players operate in such a way as to "create or recreate" the world as they go along, then you don't need a developed world in the sense of the first point, because it is really the players who will "construct or reconstruct" the world under the auspices of the DM. That is to say it appears as if the DM is building the world as you go along, but that's only the appearance. The players are both queuing and cueing the DM on what they desire the world to be like and he in turn is constructing the outline as he goes along based upon their voiced or unvoiced demands and desires.

The first choice is a little bit like Novel writing (though one in which the author develops plot and setting, but cannot control the actions of his characters, character control is always outside the realm of DM control - character control is not the job of the DM - a lot of people seem to forget that in writing a novel characters are always under your control, in gaming they never truly are), and therefore the world has purpose which the players and characters service. The second choice is more like an impromptu play or a group created story and the DM is not the author of director but rather the coordinator of how various elements fit together at any given point in time in relation to the players and characters.

Personally I don't see either as unnecessary, or as being mutually exclusive endeavors, though I can see all kinds of ranges and varying degrees of emphasis in both approaches as regards how the players, their characters, and the world interact.

And I also don't see why you can't easily have both. Or wouldn't want to have both. Having both is it seems to me far more ideal than having just one or the other. Create one or more areas of more detail in which the characters can operate by understanding not only their abilities, but their limitations as well. One area in which the world makes demands upon them. And create other areas which are basically unexplored, uncivilized, untamed, and "open frontier."

To me the great points of history, literature, myth, religion, society, science, exploration, and adventure have always been where these two areas collide, at the frontier of what is known/unknown, and at the edge of what is understood/not understood. Where the world you know, and the world that is as yet unexplored (at least by the individual(s) involved, to Theodore Roosevelt the Amazon was the Frontier, the Undiscovered Country, to an Amazonian tribesman, Washington DC would have been) clash.

In that way the player and characters always have a base of operations, a world that is stable and in which they know what the rules are, and in which they must follow the law, and another world in which they may operate freely and remake the world as they see fit and best. They have a world of Order, and they have a world of Potential. To me it always seems best to have both an Old World, and a New World. And always have a real Frontier that men can step back and forth across in order to explore and test different aspects of themselves, and of the world.

So yeah, me personally, as a DM, I prefer a more well developed, as in created world that makes demands upon the players and characters. (Because limitations and responsibilities are at least as important to "true character development," both in-game and in real life, as are liberties.) However I am always very conscious of the Frontier, and of the Undiscovered Country in which the players and characters become the New Law and reshape the New World in some fundamental way(s), either to improve it, or to corrupt it. Or as the case usually turns out to be, both.

So my advice is, there's always a World you Know, and there is always a World you Don't. The world you know is for you as the DM to create and order and is used to force demands upon the players, and the world you don't is for the players to create, and that's not really your world, it's theirs, and it is for them to see what they will make of it.

You have your job, they have theirs.
You make your world, they make theirs.