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

[Raven Crowking]

I also make certain that the details I gives sometimes has some sort of implication upon the plot, whether it's recounting what they saw, people they met, buildings they've visited within the city and officials they've negotiated with as a part of skill challenges.

Example from one of my 3e games: Some orcs take zurgash, also known as "dumbwode". It stains the lips and tongues blue, and increases the time a character can rage. It also renders one mute while in effect, and tends to lower intelligence over time. A PC facing such an orc knows that (1) the orc cannot call for help, (2) is less likely to be smart enough to strike the warning gong, and (3) is useless to question.

Zurgash was made by a group of undead "druids" who were trying to provoke the collapse of civilization and eventually spread their undead status. They made zurgash from a fungus which they grew on the bones of dead orcs, while claiming to the orcs that they were taking care of the revered dead (orcs in this world being established ancestor-worshippers).

Learning this could change the orc's viewpoint on zurgash, and win the PCs orc allies.

PCs also have the option of attempting to use the drug to increase their potential raging, at the cost of potentially getting less intelligent and being temporarily rendered mute. Zurgash is addictive, so it might also put them into the control of the undead "druids".

"Zurgash" in orcish means "blue fire".

Believe me, this sort of detail was not lost on the players, and it led to interesting events within actual game sessions.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Heh, I get that a lot.

No doubt.

So, to me, there is a distinction between setting and world building.

This explains your use of the term "setting nazis", no doubt.


I don't like fish. Fish suck. I wish people would stop wasting their time cooking fish. Yet every time I say this, the salmon nazis tell me I'm wrong.

Actually, I like salmon. I just don't think salmon are fish. If salmon were fish, why would we have two different words?

I like trout also. I think trout should be called salmon. Trout are not fish.

Just to be perfectly clear, I am only talking about fish that are poorly cooked, so that they taste bad when eaten.

Yet no one seems to understand me.

I get that a lot.


RC

 

[Stormtalon]

I think you are linking "storylines can be abandoned" and "storylines can be abandoned without consequences" in a wholly unjustified way.

What he's referring to (I believe) was this quote in reply to his description of Savage Tide and the consequences of not following through on the plot:

That's not a choice. That's just passive-aggressive railroading.

Admittedly, I think he's ascribing that particular attitude to a few too many people, but it's one that bothers me as well. I have absolutely no problems with setting up harsh consequences when a party abandons a plotline to hare off somewhere else. If the world ends, so be it -- it's their choice and I hope they had fun fiddling while Rome burnt. I'll at least make their last few months of the world something entertaining and I'll enjoy the shocked look on their faces when I end the campaign by saying, "Yeah, you remember that bad guy you decided wasn't worth the trouble? He just destroyed the world by [insert apocalypse of choice]. You're all dead."

So far, I haven't had that problem; my players like what I throw at them and they enjoy seeing where the story goes, so I haven't yet had to end the world prematurely.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

All of this has a lot to do with how connected to the world the characters are.
If the participants are all there to complete objective X then the adventure could be played in any world and details are unimportant. This style of play is perfectly fine, requires less work from the DM and players that have busy lives have less to have to keep track of. Its harder to establish meaningful connections to the gameworld this way. If nobody cares then all the detail is just extra (unappreciated) work.

If everyone wants connections to the world to have more meaning then the lack of detail can make things more difficult. If my character is supposed to deliver some box to a guy in some nameless town to get paid and has to travel through orc territory then all that matters is getting the job done, fighting some orcs and perhaps getting some extra loot.
In this case the rewards and adventure activities could take place anywhere. The setting is unimportant. The players have no connection to the world,and no in or out of game reasons to care about the world at large. Its just a bunch of generic places poulated with generic people. All that matters to drive gameplay are the rewards-XP, treasure, gear upgrades, ect. The actual quests and stories are meaningless beyond the rewards that they provide.

This style of play might not be enough for everyone. Its unrealistic of the DM to ask the players to care about Kingdom barcode or its people. Its unrealistic of the players to expect adventures with more plot and life without them taking place in a setting with more detail. Its up to the group as a whole to decide on a level of detail that is acceptable to provide for the campaign's needs.

The trick is making the detail matter to the players. Tying the in game rewards that the characters receive closely with the specific setting while maintaining player interest in those rewards is the magic mixture. If my character is entrusted with a box by Brother Cuthbert that needs to get to Duke Roderick at his keep beyond the Dark Forest with great haste because the box contains a magical cure for his 7 year old daughter for which I will be rewarded well then I might approach the adventure differently. Rather than charge into battle against the first orcs I see for more XP and loot I would do my best to avoid such troubles to complete my mission. Getting the cure delivered on time will not only earn some tangible coin but the gratitude of Duke Roderick. The word of my heroism will spread to the Duke's holdings and I will get continued rewards in that specific place. I learn about the people and places in the area.Discounts, or perhaps free goods and services that make Roderick's Duchy meaningful and not just some place where I did some quest. The events that spring from this detail make my character care about the place. The cool stuff my character gets makes me as a player care about the place.

The exact level of detail thats needed to drive this interest/reward system will vary to taste. The world needs enough detail to maintain player interest but too much can cause it to be lost again.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I find that if you don't make these small details important, that they're often lost upon the players. Oftentimes, I'll challenge my players before the game starts to see if they recall the little things in my gaming world (think Jeopardy), and grant them bonus experience points. I find that players begin to recall these things for the reward, and in turn when speaking from a character perspective, often incorporate these small, evocative details in the patterns of their speech.

I also make certain that the details I gives sometimes has some sort of implication upon the plot, whether it's recounting what they saw, people they met, buildings they've visited within the city and officials they've negotiated with as a part of skill challenges.

This is exactly why I dislike this sort of world building. It almost always comes out as a "Gotcha!" Whether it's a quiz, a puzzle that you could have solved, a plot point that you are expected to figure out, or whatever. The reason these sorts of details are thrown out by world building DMs is so that they can test players to see how much they paid attention to the history lesson they received.

If you aren't as interested in the history and culture of their world as they are, then you get punished for it. As a player, I'm NEVER as interested in the history and culture of their world as they are. So, I'm always the one punished.

 

[Barastrondo]

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:
(snip for space)

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.

Absolutely, you can go too far.

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."

You can also go not far enough. With my group, that'd be pretty blandly received or even mocked: "an orc signpost" tends to conjure up images of a sign posted with "Orc Territory" written on it. Without more detail, it knocks them out of immersion.

Compare to: "Halfway through the woods, you see a wolf's skull set atop a pile of red-stained rocks." If the characters are reasonably familiar with orcs, you add "Looks like an orc territory marker," possibly "you've heard that there's a tribe of orcs in the area called the Wolfskulls." Only a little more effort, and stronger immersion. Depending on your players, that immersion can be critical to them having a good time in the game as opposed to simply participating to be polite.

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.

When a GM goes into too much detail, I get bored, too. On the other hand, if I ask "What do I know about these orcs?", make a roll, and the GM gives me purely generic orc information out of the Monster Manual, I have nothing to really interact with. I'm of the explorer type, and I like to find out what neat things the GM's going to come up with for my character to interact with. If the answer is that he doesn't really have anything interesting to look at, poke, eat or read beyond the context of the immediate adventure, I have much less interest in the game.

As always, you gotta know your audience. But I've found that for the groups I tend to play with, coming up with extra details is absolutely worth the time: the players require it to feel like actual residents of the world instead of pieces on a game board. Writing 5,000 words on Vilessan opera is certainly going too far, but knowing that opera is a popular medium in the area is useful if the party bard asks "So are there any good shows in town at the moment?"; even more useful if you can ad lib "Sure, there's a pretty well-received comedy opera about three halfling brothers playing." And I have players like that.

 

[billd91]

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.

Not worth the payoff? I beg to differ, at least with some of your examples.

DM: "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.

That puts me on the edge of my seat. I can picture the sign. I feel an air of menace. Absolutely worth the time spent.

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."

*zzzzz SNORE zzzzz*
I'm picturing a typical city sign "Welcome to Orc Territory, pop. 400".

What we're really looking at here is the boxed text needs is a little editing.

DM: "You are walking through the Darken Woods. The day is bright and cheery as the light from the twin suns shines through the canopy. You pass by large amounts of thickly growing berry bushes on your way to deliver the strangely colored purple box to xxx [you never did finish that example]

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."

The problem isn't in the world building and building unnecessary details. The problem is in presenting them effectively rather than drowing the players in a sea of unnecessary detail. But knowing the details, because you've considered them, enables you to present them if and when the PCs interact with them.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The problem isn't in the world building and building unnecessary details. The problem is in presenting them effectively rather than drowing the players in a sea of unnecessary detail. But knowing the details, because you've considered them, enables you to present them if and when the PCs interact with them.

Ok I can't give XP for this right now, can someone cover me?

 

[Greg K]

Ok I can't give XP for this right now, can someone cover me?

Covered!

(btw, do you know what, occassionally, prevents giving exp to someone? Yesterday, I tried to give Imaro exp and could not do it so Aus Snow covered me).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Covered!

(btw, do you know what, occassionally, prevents giving exp to someone? Yesterday, I tried to give Imaro exp and could not do it so Aus Snow covered me).

You can only give XP to a particular poster every so often. I don't think its time related but rather how many different posters you give XP to before being able to award the same person again, thus "spread some around"