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

[Hussar]

Where did you get that from?!

/snip
PS

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.

I get that from the second part of Imaro's post. If I'm understanding him correctly, he's saying that it is perfectly fine for the PC's to abandon any plotlines at any time. He's creating "an environment as opposed to a particular story based world".

To me, that means that there is no story other than what the players themselves come up with.

If you can abandon story lines without consequences, then those storylines must get put on hold. Either that or there are not story lines in the first place.

To me, there have to be consequences for abandoning storylines. I wouldn't run a world where there wasn't.

That's why I'm asking for clarification, because I'm obviously missing something. I know Imaro is a better DM than that. I'm just wondering what piece of the puzzle is not making its way past my skull.

 

[Stoat]

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.

I suggest that your definition of the term "world building" may be more idiosyncratic than you realize. I generally use the term to encompass any kind of setting development, and it appears that several other posters here do as well. Your definition of the term is not familiar to me and seems unhelpful. Even though I generally agree with your approach to the topic.

For my games, the more I think the players will focus on something, the more detail I prepare in advance. If the players are just passing through, I won't prepare much detail. If the players are settling in, I will.

So for example, imagine my players are inspired by Marco Polo to undertake a difficult overland voyage to the East. They plan to stop in Constantinople for a few days to buy supplies and consult with the local sages about the dangers that wait ahead. In game, they won't be there more than a week. In reality, we won't spend more than a session or two in the city.

I won't spend a lot of time thinking about the history of Constantinople. I won't detail its thieves guild(s) or worry about the complex ballet of etiquette and vendetta practices by its noble houses. I might draw a map, but I won't bother to name every street or identify every building. I'll focus on the merchants and sages that I expect the PC's to deal with. If the players surprise me, I'll improvise for a few hours, take good notes, and work from there before the next session.

OTOH, if the PC's start off as 1st level characters in Constantinople, they live there and the players want an extended urban adventure, then I'll do a lot of setting prep. I'll have a detailed map. I'll detail any number of NPC's cabals, guilds, cults and what have you. I'll think about local law and punishment.

 

[Stoat]

As an aside: Hussar are you running a 4E campaign? I'm interested in any 4E material relevant to the Isle of Dread that I can get my hands on.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Really though, is a random encounter table world buildling?

Exhibit A: Reynard's Blog. 'Nuff said.

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

And yet you fail to see the paradox inherent in believing that players "want to have some idea that they have an effect on the world" while crying out against the creation of that world in the first place?

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.

Yup. It is perfectly okay for the PCs to allow the princess to get eaten by the dragon if the players view something else as more important. You don't see it this way?

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.

That falls under "(a) Bob is spending time on his own interests rather than yours".

Your interest is in having material prepped for the game sessions. If Bob isn't prepping said material you certainly have a right to discuss the matter with him, and to exit the game if it seems unlikely that the issue will be resolved. What you do not have a right to do is demand that Bob prep material for you rather than prep material for himself.

What Bob does not have a right to do is demand that you play in a game that is, for you, crappy. Heck, Bob doesn't have a right to demand that you play in a game that is the best you ever played, either.

If Bob is intending to create the necessary materials, but failing to do so, then the same questions remain:

(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!).​

And, again, the same conclusion remains:

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.​

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

I would have to agree. Well, at least broadly painted, if not detailed.

In the politics example, though, it amazes me that anyone would imagine that you could run an effective political campaign without knowing who the neighbours are. It's rather like imagining a game where PCs run the U.S. government, but the GM has failed to take Canada, Mexico, Russia, and France into account......


RC

 

[LostSoul]

(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.

I agree.

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.

I think it's worth noting that some methods of worldbuilding work well for some play styles and don't work so well for others. When talking about good methods of worldbuilding I think you'd have to start with the goals of the group.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I get that from the second part of Imaro's post. If I'm understanding him correctly, he's saying that it is perfectly fine for the PC's to abandon any plotlines at any time. He's creating "an environment as opposed to a particular story based world".

To me, that means that there is no story other than what the players themselves come up with.

If you can abandon story lines without consequences, then those storylines must get put on hold. Either that or there are not story lines in the first place.

You are taking a great (and unjustified) leap from "it is perfectly fine for the PC's to abandon any plotlines at any time" to "it is perfectly fine for the PC's to abandon any plotlines at any time without consequences."


RC

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

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.

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.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think it's worth noting that some methods of worldbuilding work well for some play styles and don't work so well for others. When talking about good methods of worldbuilding I think you'd have to start with the goals of the group.

Absolutely!

You will have to start with the goals of the individuals comprising the group (including the DM) and the goals of the group as a whole. Unless you know where you want to get to, how can you plan a reasonable course?

 

[Hussar]

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."

Just pulling out this one bit. I agree that in a perfect world, we certainly could have both. However, the one limiting factor in here is time. Most DM's only have a limited amount of time to spend on gaming. I feel that the time is better spent on focusing on the campaign rather than the setting.

I suggest that your definition of the term "world building" may be more idiosyncratic than you realize. I generally use the term to encompass any kind of setting development, and it appears that several other posters here do as well. Your definition of the term is not familiar to me and seems unhelpful. Even though I generally agree with your approach to the topic.

Heh, I get that a lot.

The problem I have with lumping the two activities together is twofold. First, if they can be lumped together, why have separate terms? If they are synonymous, they're redundant. Two, there are several works of fiction where you can have setting without any world building whatsoever. Beckett's Waiting for Godot is the best example I can think of for this. A great many theater plays as well fall into this.

For example, look at Romeo and Juliet. Fantastic play. One of the greats of the English language. But, so utterly lacking in world building that you can set it almost anywhere, from Verona, to modern day cities, to space ships, to steaming jungles without changing a word. Beyond the fact that you have two warring factions (why are they warring? Who cares?) and the lovers are from opposing factions, that's about all the setting you get.

There are other examples, so, even if you don't specifically agree with this one, I'm sure you can supply your own.

So, to me, there is a distinction between setting and world building. Setting, by definition is directly tied to the plot. It has to be. Setting is the location where the plot occurs. World building then, to me, has to be something other than setting. It's all the extra stuff that lots of authors (particularly fantasy authors) like to pad their doorstop sized books with - all the mostly unrelated background stuff that doesn't really have a whole lot of impact on the plot.

To give a particularly egregious example, read Perdito Street Station by China Mieville. In the story, he spends several chapters detailing the life cycle and background of one of the characters. He then removes that character from the plot half way through the book and the character makes no more appearances until the final chapter. The character's background has pretty much nothing to do with why she is kidnapped nor does it have anything to do with her return.

To me, that's world building.

Again, I'm not saying world building is bad. It's not. It can be tons of fun. I just believe that a DM's efforts could be better directed. That spending time and effort detailing elements on the off chance that the players might go somewhere is doing a disservice to the ongoing campaign. And I think the advice that is typically served up to new DM's is also misleading. It places too much emphasis on world building and not enough on focusing on campaign.

 

[Storminator]

I get that from the second part of Imaro's post. If I'm understanding him correctly, he's saying that it is perfectly fine for the PC's to abandon any plotlines at any time. He's creating "an environment as opposed to a particular story based world".

To me, that means that there is no story other than what the players themselves come up with.

If you can abandon story lines without consequences, then those storylines must get put on hold. Either that or there are not story lines in the first place.

Let's look at that Imaro quote again:

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.

To me, there have to be consequences for abandoning storylines. I wouldn't run a world where there wasn't.

That's why I'm asking for clarification, because I'm obviously missing something. I know Imaro is a better DM than that. I'm just wondering what piece of the puzzle is not making its way past my skull.

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

PS