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

[GnomeWorks]

Is this a railroad:

Yep.

 

[Pierson_Lowgal]

tangent
Is this a railroad:

No.
The implication of railroading is that there is one track, and the PC's, like a train, must follow it. As long as there is more than one track, and the track are meaningfully different from the perspective of the PC's, it is not a railroad.

If the hallways to the left and the right are described identically, then the decision to go left or right is valueless.

• Example: The players must decide whether to go against the Broccoli-Boys or the Cauliflower-Carnivores. Only, none of the characters has a history with either group. The PCs have never before met the NPCs who are offering the missions. The choice exists, but is valueless.
• Example: As above, but one character's father is a racist against broccoli people. The party rogue has secretly learned of an ancient treasure the cauliflower-carnivores posses. The broccoli boys have been causing trouble in an area near a holy site of the party's paladin. A poor shepard, but an old friend, is offering one mission and the local baron is offering the other. Now, the choice is interesting, compelling and meaningful to the characters because of an investment in character and story building.

 

[Remathilis]

tangent

Is this a railroad:

"You are starting in Chicago. You WILL go to New Orleans, and you WILL pass through St. Louis on the way. You can take the train, or drive, or fly, or walk for all I care; and you don't even have to go in a straight line, but those cities are where you're going."

/tangent

Lan-"I'm the train they call the City of New Orleans"-efan

Good Lord, I've been a railroad DM all this time and I never knew it!

See, I used to think that a DM's job was to supply an overarching narrative element to the game. I (as DM) create a game with some element I want to explore; a demon-lord needs stopping, a kingdom needs founding, a cheerleader needs rescuing, etc. I present (more or less) the problem to the PCs, they figure out how to solve it. Along the way, they stumble across things I want them to for no other reason then I want them to. And yes, sometimes my PCs get involved in odd side-projects and minor plot and I have to sink their barge, but that's the way life is; Demon lords don't wait around for PCs to finish exploring Castle Von Doom before sending thier minions to sack Greyhawk.

Because otherwise, the world is mechanical. Orcs always appear in the Bright Desert, Giants wander Geoff, and at 12:00 PM EST, a demon cult tries to summon an Aspect of Orcus and will continue to try until the PCs go and stop them. Without an overarching meaning, the DMs job falls from "storyteller" to "game-server", making sure random spawn points for monsters and loot appear in their predetermined places and times.

Rema- "I guess D&D IS WoW" -thilis.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"You are starting in Chicago. You WILL go to New Orleans, and you WILL pass through St. Louis on the way. You can take the train, or drive, or fly, or walk for all I care; and you don't even have to go in a straight line, but those cities are where you're going."

It doesn't provide meaningful choice, so yeah, it is.

Not that it's necessarily horrible or anything. If the players are cool with choosing between paths going in the same direction, it's a fine way to play. Frequently, I'll put that kind of railroad on character creation:

"I don't care what you are or who you are or why you are, but here's the thing: You all have been hired by this wizard to find this MacGuffin, and you want to do it. Maybe he paid you. Maybe he's your uncle. Maybe you're secretly in love with his beard. Maybe you think he's a succubus. I don't care. You just want to do THIS."

After character creation, the rails are usually off. I don't tell players what their motives are or how to go about accomplishing them; I don't force them to have a particular destination. At character creation, this is mostly because I don't want to spend three hours wrangling them into the same spot just so that there can be an adventure. Afterwards, it's up to them.

I might say "You are starting in Chicago, and you want to go to New Orleans" as a way to open the character creation. Once they're on their way, I can probably have them pass through St. Louis, but if one of the PC's maybe is afraid of St. Louis, I won't force the issue.

I'll give them stuff to do, but it will never be the ONLY thing there is to do.

Once the PC's reach St. Louis, I might want them to go to Houston, but I don't tell them they need to go to Houston, I provide them incentive to go there (and also incentive to stay).

Typically, I'll just say "You are starting in Chicago. What do you want?" and then let them know, via NPC dialogue that New Orleans has what they want, and that St. Louis, along the way, might be a good place to crash?

 

[Hussar]

On the trip to St. Louis thing. Let's change it slightly. Let's set this back a few years and your only two choices are horses or train. Train is much faster (obviously) and easier. The players have the means to pay for a train ticket.

Now, I don't know my American geography as well as I should, but, assume for the sake of arguement that the roads and the train line pass through New Orleans on the way to St. Louis.

Is this still a railroad?

Or, to take it another way, is it a railroad to have the players explore the Amazon river? There's pretty much only one way to do it - boat. You cannot really turn or choose to go somewhere else. Assuming the players have bought into the exploration theme, is this a railroad campaign?

Heck, is Imaro's floating city a railroad? You cannot leave the city. You are forcing the players to stay in the city, isn't that railroading?

Honestly, all of the above, from a certain point of view, probably are railroading, but, without any negative context. Imaro's campaign sounds cool. I'd love to do a Savage Worlds campaign based on exploring the Amazon river in the 1920's. I really wish there was a neutral term for defining campaign limitations that avoided the railroading term. I've heard Shepherding, but, I'm not sure if that works either.

You know I'm curious concerning Hussar and Majoru and a few others, when do you start designing a campaign. I see you all talk about the time limit and work and how no one could possibly detail all the stuff world builders claim, but I design my campaign world before actual play starts.

As an exmple right now my group is running a multi-DM Castles and Crusades campaign (typical high fantasy)... but I know afterwards I'm going to run a 4e game (trying for the 3rd time to sell my players on it, but if not Pathfinder will be out by then and I'll use that) and thus have begun (using Obsidian Portal) to create a campaign wiki that details my world. I have months (until around September) to finish this before we would start playing so I don't run into the limited time only problem you all seem to have.

Will everything about the City of Gulmenghast be detailed before play? No. Will more than enough be detailed that the PC's will be able to run in almost any direction they want to, and I'll be bale to handle it with ease... I believe so since this is how I tend to world build, but we'll see.

You don't see a problem with the fact that you are going to spend six months detailing your campaign setting before you feel comfortable beginning?

Would you say that this is good advice to players? That they should spend six months detailing a campaign world before they sit down to create the adventures in that campaign world?

Should we advise DM's that spending 6-12 months before you run a game is a good idea?

I personally don't think so.

On the badwrongfun thing for random encounters. Sigh. I really wish people would take the time to actually read what I write and not just knee jerk react. Look, I know that random encounters can be fine. I even said that I use them, AND in the apparently offending post, I specifically say that they can be fine. Go back and read the post if you don't believe me.

What I DID say was that meaningless, disconnected combat encounters were a bad thing that turns D&D into Diablo.

Now, sure, you could somehow mold your campaign around the random event that has no link to the players, but, then, the event is no longer meaningless, so, it's not a bad thing anymore.

Me, I'd rather have random encounter tables that make some sense given the context of the game. "You're walking down the forest path and out jump... (roll roll roll) ... 15 Nazi Zombie Bugbears! Roll for initiative" might be fun, but, hey, I gotta say that it's not a game I'd want to play in.

OMG, Hussar said mindless, meaningless combat with no relation to the plot or the characters is bad! How dare he make any sort of judgement on another game. Come on. Are you really going to sit there and tell me that mindless, meaningless combat is GOOD gaming?

((Note, to all of you who want to take my example and change it to mean more than it is, try not to. Read what I just wrote, and please stop trying to take it to mean something larger than it is.))

 

[Imaro]

Heck, is Imaro's floating city a railroad? You cannot leave the city. You are forcing the players to stay in the city, isn't that railroading?

Actually, you can leave the city... you see the city has to barter with, trade with and raid other worlds to keep itself functioning... so there is plenty of chances to leave the city...Now the real question is why don't most citizens and what are the consequences for doing so permanently...

Imaro's campaign sounds cool.

Why thanks, I try....

You don't see a problem with the fact that you are going to spend six months detailing your campaign setting before you feel comfortable beginning?

Where did I say I wouldn't be comfortable beginning in less than six months? I however do have 6 months to plan and want to use it building the world. Just for the record this isn't the only way I start games... the C&C campaign my group is running now wasn't really planned out extensively at all, and is a more "fog of creation" type campaign with multiple DM's building as we go.

Would you say that this is good advice to players? That they should spend six months detailing a campaign world before they sit down to create the adventures in that campaign world?

First I wouldn't advise them to create "the" adventure in their campaign world at all (my campaign world I'm building doesn't have 1 adventure). You see my advice to them would be that their methodology should be dependent upon what they are trying to achieve and what works best for them in achieving that method. Instead of stressing one or the other I would instead give them an unbiased account of what I feel the pros and cons of the two approaches are and let them decide for themselves which they want to use. IMO, adventures or situations (setting-based, time-based, etc.) are actually part of worldbuilding...

Should we advise DM's that spending 6-12 months before you run a game is a good idea?

I personally don't think so.

Who said it had to be 6 months to a year? Really your using hyperbole again and it's getting tired. This is why it's hard to discuss anything in a meaningful way with you. I gave an example of how, I have found the time to create a particular setting I want to flesh out exstensively... is this a hard limit no, is 6 months to a year even necessary to have a nicely fleshed out world? No. So really what are you arguing... is it the time spent to worldbuilding or is it the act of worldbuilding you find distasteful?

On the badwrongfun thing for random encounters. Sigh. I really wish people would take the time to actually read what I write and not just knee jerk react. Look, I know that random encounters can be fine. I even said that I use them, AND in the apparently offending post, I specifically say that they can be fine. Go back and read the post if you don't believe me.

What I DID say was that meaningless, disconnected combat encounters were a bad thing that turns D&D into Diablo.

Now, sure, you could somehow mold your campaign around the random event that has no link to the players, but, then, the event is no longer meaningless, so, it's not a bad thing anymore.

Me, I'd rather have random encounter tables that make some sense given the context of the game. "You're walking down the forest path and out jump... (roll roll roll) ... 15 Nazi Zombie Bugbears! Roll for initiative" might be fun, but, hey, I gotta say that it's not a game I'd want to play in.

OMG, Hussar said mindless, meaningless combat with no relation to the plot or the characters is bad! How dare he make any sort of judgement on another game. Come on. Are you really going to sit there and tell me that mindless, meaningless combat is GOOD gaming?

((Note, to all of you who want to take my example and change it to mean more than it is, try not to. Read what I just wrote, and please stop trying to take it to mean something larger than it is.))

Your original post was in response to Ariosto and his comment about encounters that have nothing to do with a particular story which does not equate to totally arbitrary meaningless combat.

 

[Hussar]

First I wouldn't advise them to create "the" adventure in their campaign world at all (my campaign world I'm building doesn't have 1 adventure). You see my advice to them would be that their methodology should be dependent upon what they are trying to achieve and what works best for them in achieving that method. Instead of stressing one or the other I would instead give them an unbiased account of what I feel the pros and cons of the two approaches are and let them decide for themselves which they want to use. IMO, adventures or situations (setting-based, time-based, etc.) are actually part of worldbuilding...

You missed an "s" in my post. Not "The Adventure" but the adventures in a campaign. Which you put into the column of worldbuilding. I do not. This is why we're having such a difficult time discussing, because we cannot agree on basic terminology.

I most certainly would not put adventure building into the realm of world building. They are separate in my mind. Heck, they're separate in the DMG as well. Adventure building and world building are in separate chapters for a reason.

Who said it had to be 6 months to a year? Really your using hyperbole again and it's getting tired. This is why it's hard to discuss anything in a meaningful way with you. I gave an example of how, I have found the time to create a particular setting I want to flesh out exstensively... is this a hard limit no, is 6 months to a year even necessary to have a nicely fleshed out world? No. So really what are you arguing... is it the time spent to worldbuilding or is it the act of worldbuilding you find distasteful?

YOU said six months to build your world. I tacked on extra months because you still need to create adventures AFTER you create the world. How is it hyperbole to use your own words?

Again, I don't find world building distasteful. I've stated that numerous times. I DO see it as a huge time sink that could be better spent. So, yes, I guess it's the time issue. World building has been so ingrained into the gaming culture that you, yourself cannot even separate out from designing a campaign. You lump it all together as one activity.

Again, I do not. I think that you can build deep, meaningful campaigns with lots of options and multiple plotlines, that is linked directly to the PC's, and includes elements that are beyond the PC's that they can choose to get involved in, all without spending several months detailing a world.

Yes, you are going to have to do SOME what you call world building. I totally agree with that. I would call that setting building honestly. I would not call that world building because the goal of world building is to create a WORLD, not a campaign.

But, we're just chasing our tails here. We refuse to accept each other's definitions, and we likely never will. I think that the "fetishization" of world building is a bad thing. I think that it has become far too important for what it is - which is to me a solitary endevour for the enjoyment of the creator. It's creating ships in a bottle or model trains. Not that model trains or ships in a bottle are a bad thing. But, they are bad if you want to play a naval combat game using those ships as a model (the bottles keep rolling off the table ).

That's why I don't like world building. Because I see it as an activity divorced from the campaign. You do not. You include all setting construction under the umbrella of world building. Obviously, I disagree.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

I am a proponent of the "Only create what you will use, improvise extensively in game, and take prodigious notes during play in an effort enhance consistency" method. I plan a general conflict that will involve the PCs. This idea of conflict necessitates both protagonists (usually the PCs) and antagonists (usually, but not limited to, the BBEG). I add details to make the conflict meaningful. I stop there so that the canvas is wide open during play, and I improvise a lot of stuff during play. I also invite the players to add to the world through and during play. I get surprised that way too.

This debate seems to stem around the idea of the necessity of planning. We all acknowledge that planning for stuff that we will for sure use in our games is a good idea. We all even seem to agree with the idea that planning for things that we are likely to use in our games is good. Some are saying that it is a good idea to plan things that we might need.

I will ask the question, what probability of likelihood for use in our games is the threshold necessary for us to feel like planning is a good idea. 100% liklihood is a given. Many people would agree that 0% liklihood means that you are doing something besides RPGs at that point, even if related. Somewhere in between is where most people operate. Is 80% likely to use something enough to warrant planning? What about 60%? 40%? How about 20%. Is that enough reason to spend time working on things? It is obvious that each person will have their own threshold, but we all draw the line somewhere. I think that the OP was trying to state that the threshold should be higher than is implied in the DMG, or in the RPG community in general. I agree. Playing games is way more fun for me, and I would hazard to say it is for most, than planning games.

I have run many great campaigns using little worldbuilding as most people would recognise it. I improvise a lot. Many people don't allow themselves to, or don't admit that they do improvise. Planning the encounters that the PCs will face is a good idea. Getting an idea of the conflict is a good idea. Getting an idea of the characters that are involved and their roles is a good idea. Chronicaling history, planning the world geography, describing the politics outside of the PCs immediate sphere of influence, or charting the global or even the regional or local economics is usually wasted time. Make it up as you go. Play the game, don't plan the game, if time is limited.

The conflict in my opinion is the most important part of planning a campaign. Everything else can be winged on the fly without much problem. Without a conflict, there isn't much going for a game, and everything but the characters and the conflict is just set dressing. It can be very beautiful set dressing, and it can put the conflict in context, but it is just set dressing. This is less necessary than conflict, tone, and context.

I am experimenting with putting a game together almost randomly using random setting and plot tables, and winging the rest. Here are the random tables I will be using.

Here are my results.

Setting-Dreamworld/Fallen Civilization

• Tone- Conspiracy/Horror
• Thing 1- Clockwork Guardians
• Thing 2- Special Ops

Opposition- Infestation

• Action-Guide
• Descriptor-Rigid
• Thing-Espionage
• Action-Assasinate
• Descriptor- Mercurial
• Other Thing-Religious Fanatics

The conflict will be stopping the recurrence of a dreamworld invasion that destroyed a previous civilization. The antagonists will be ancient dreamworld entities, posessed "normals", government special ops out to kill the PCs, ancient clockwork guardians, and cultists of forgotten religions. The PCs will have to figure out which NPCs are on which side, and how things fit together. I will plan things as I go.

I am planning to have the characters awaken in a lab with no memories of their past lives. They will all have strange tattoos of runes on their bodies. They will instantly be attacked by a group of fantasy special ops agents that state "We are too late! The ritual is complete! They must be destroyed." The other elements will be added after this. Yes, I stole this from a blog post I read. No, my results will not be the same as the original blogger's.

I am positive that I can develope a fully cohesive, wildly entertaining, and altogether unique campaign with an absolute minimum of world building, all from random tables. To plan more than I do will lower the likelihood of my planning being useful from 100% likely to be useful, to less than 100% likely to be useful, with more planning being correlated to lower likelihood of my plans being used in game. That means that some of my time will have been wasted. I am not interested in wasting my time. Those who like to world build can go right on doing it. I would rather play.

 

[LostSoul]

Is this a railroad:

"You are starting in Chicago. You WILL go to New Orleans, and you WILL pass through St. Louis on the way. You can take the train, or drive, or fly, or walk for all I care; and you don't even have to go in a straight line, but those cities are where you're going."

Depends. Do the players care about deciding where they go? Is that choice meaningful to them? If not, I don't think it counts as railroading.

 

[Imaro]

You missed an "s" in my post. Not "The Adventure" but the adventures in a campaign. Which you put into the column of worldbuilding. I do not. This is why we're having such a difficult time discussing, because we cannot agree on basic terminology.

I most certainly would not put adventure building into the realm of world building. They are separate in my mind. Heck, they're separate in the DMG as well. Adventure building and world building are in separate chapters for a reason.

And yet taking my example earlier of The Gray Man's Temple... that is a ready made adventure if my PC's choose to investigate it, until that moment it is world building. What I'm saying is that in building my world potential adventures are organically created so their is no hard line between the two.

YOU said six months to build your world. I tacked on extra months because you still need to create adventures AFTER you create the world. How is it hyperbole to use your own words?

What I said was that I had 6 months not that I, or anyone else for that matter, needed 6 months. As far as still needing to create adventures... read what I posted above. A site based adventure is constructed whenever I detail a structure, neighborhood or ward in my city, a time based adventure is created when I plan out the major events that will, without intervention happen in the city.

Again, I don't find world building distasteful. I've stated that numerous times. I DO see it as a huge time sink that could be better spent. So, yes, I guess it's the time issue. World building has been so ingrained into the gaming culture that you, yourself cannot even separate out from designing a campaign. You lump it all together as one activity.

And does that time become wasted if they aren't willing to go along for the particular ride you've set up with all your carefully crafted adventures. You see IMO, this is a dangerous road because it can easily lead to the bad type of railroading where the DM has already constructed what path he wants to transpire for the campaign... and he wouldn't want all that work to go to watse... As far as seperating them, again my previous posts explain how my worldbuilding creates places, events, etc.... what it doesn't do is pre-suppose the PC's will choose any particular one.


Of course as the DM it becomes trivial for me to involve them or give them hooks to investigate any of them, however what I won't do is tell them... "Hey, guys this campaign will be about..." it's just not my style and I don't enjoy running a game that I know the outcome of or even the path it will take... For my players and I to have the experience we all want, yes I am willing to put in extra work... Do I construct every campaign like this? No. But it's a valuable tool for when it suits my purposes. Is it necessary to play the game? No. But again as I stated in an earlier post, neither is having a story. It's about preferences and enjoyment. You seem unable to grasp that what you consider "wankery" or a waste of time, for others could actually enhance their games.

Again, I do not. I think that you can build deep, meaningful campaigns with lots of options and multiple plotlines, that is linked directly to the PC's, and includes elements that are beyond the PC's that they can choose to get involved in, all without spending several months detailing a world.

Are you kidding me? You're arguing about wasting time on the basis of use in game... but it's not a waste of time to detail multiple plotines (some not even linked to the PC's), some or many of which the PC's may ignore?? I'm confused how is this in anyway less of a potential time waster than worldbuilding? It sounds like you just like building stories (even if they won't see use) more than you like the worldbuilding approach.

Once again... everything you talk about above can come about naturally, and IMO more organically, through world building.

Yes, you are going to have to do SOME what you call world building. I totally agree with that. I would call that setting building honestly. I would not call that world building because the goal of world building is to create a WORLD, not a campaign.

A campaign isn't just a story either... that's a story. IMO, a campaign is the sum of players choices, consequences, etc. that take place within a particular world. You seem to believe a campaign is adventure after adventure that the PC's follow.

But, we're just chasing our tails here. We refuse to accept each other's definitions, and we likely never will. I think that the "fetishization" of world building is a bad thing. I think that it has become far too important for what it is - which is to me a solitary endevour for the enjoyment of the creator. It's creating ships in a bottle or model trains. Not that model trains or ships in a bottle are a bad thing. But, they are bad if you want to play a naval combat game using those ships as a model (the bottles keep rolling off the table ).

That's why I don't like world building. Because I see it as an activity divorced from the campaign. You do not. You include all setting construction under the umbrella of world building. Obviously, I disagree.

Yes you're right, but it's because to me an adventure only happens when my PC's choose to interact with something... not because I decided the adventure for tonight will be "The Assault on the Cartwright Inn". Thus citing the previous example, until a time comes that the PC's decide to interact with the Cartwright Inn...it exists as a part of the world (and even a potential adventure) but is not an actual adventure or story until the PC's choose to interact with it in some way.

As far as worldbuilding being a solitary endeavor, you should check out some indie games for examples of why it doesn't have to be that way. Of course if your PC's do enjoy interacting with your world they may want you to create it independent of them so that they can explore it. Again different strokes for different folks.