[Game Design] Will Wright on Story and Game

[RFisher]

Did they make sense within the context of the setting?

I don't really remember a lot of consideration for making our races make any sense within the context of the setting.

(It was actually run by a guy who almost never DM'd, & I'm pretty sure it was a direct reaction against the rest of us always being concerned with excluding things to make them "make sense".)

Basically, at 1st level and at every 5th level, a player is given the option to add something to his character or change something about the world.

Cool.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't really remember a lot of consideration for making our races make any sense within the context of the setting.

(It was actually run by a guy who almost never DM'd, & I'm pretty sure it was a direct reaction against the rest of us always being concerned with excluding things to make them "make sense".)

Making sense within the context of the setting can be done in one of three ways:

(1) creating the setting and then making characters that make sense within that setting.

(2) creating the characters and then making a setting that makes sense for those characters.

(3) making a setting that could host an infinite number of PC types while still making sense.

The problem I see with (2) is that making the setting is inherently more work than making the characters, so that if you wait to make the setting until the PCs are developed, you will either have an underdeveloped world or you will have a very long wait to use those PCs (which also contains a potential loss of interest in doing so).

Obviously, if you don't care about world depth, these problems can just be hand-waved away.

The problem with (3) is that there are a limited number of interesting settings in which you can have both the level of depth I (for one) desire, and the level of spread to really allow an "anything goes" approach. The aforementioned wizard's labyrinth was an attempt to allow such a spread for initial characters, while allowing the players to then subsequently learn enough about the world to create later characters that fit in.

Planescape and Spelljammer are pretty good settings for "anything goes" campaigns. You can make almost anything make sense within their contexts.


RC

 

[Rothe]

.....
I would argue that the very best D&D games occur where:

#1. There is a well-detailed, well-thought-out setting that can be used to tell numerous stories (i.e., tomb raiders, complex politics, what-have-you).

#2. This setting includes numerous thematic "pay off" points, where these points can be any number of things, including foiling villians, finding a big haul, discovering secrets, etc.

#3. The players make characters that make sense within the context of the setting.

#4. The players are encouraged to make choices in the setting. This means that, on any given day, there are a number of adventure locations and/or threads that the PCs can follow up on. It also means, within the context of the setting, that they can choose threads that the DM didn't necessarily realize were threads ahead of time.

#5. Their choices have real consequences in the setting. This can, and should, go so far as to change the nature of the setting if the PC actions are momentous enough. It should also include real consequences for the things they decide to ignore -- the world should move even when the PCs aren't pushing it.

This means that both the "illusion of freedom" mentioned upthread and the "PCs determine all" are both extremes that detract from rather than add to a fun game.

At least, IMHO.

RC

In my humble opinion as well.

 

[happyelf]

Making sense within the context of the setting can be done in one of three ways:

(1) creating the setting and then making characters that make sense within that setting.

Why is the "context of the setting" reliant on the setting being created in advance?

The setting should be flexible to the goals of the players, and the ideas they come up with not only in character creation, but play. The ideas of the characters are as much as resource as the ideas of the GM. After all, the 'context' of the setting should be play.

I mean i'm all about the suprises, and the big setting reveals. I'm not one of these people who wants to lay out everything in advance with the players. But when I make a setting, while I have secrets and laws and style and so on, I also leave a lot of room to add in stuff that can help a player reach the kind of character they want to play.

For isntance, I had a setting where to gods were, more or less modeled on the greyhawk gods. One of ym players wanted to play a cleric of the sun god, but his sun god was very little like Pelor, being instead a warlike, chaotic good deity intereted in glory, who's followers were kind of a mix of barbarians, vikings, and chaotic paladins. So I altered the sun god to fit his idea, and the results were way more interesting, anyway. For instance I decided that Pelor had been this deity's father, and had bequeathed the sunsword to his son upon his death, wich further enflamed the rivalry between the new sun god and his elder brother, a LG deity of paladins and knights.

Then another guy wanted to play a half-orc with an int of 6 and I said "ahahaha no chance". There's s line, but it shouldn't be drawn too tightly.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why is the "context of the setting" reliant on the setting being created in advance?

Ummm...did you read past (1)?

Specifically:

(2) creating the characters and then making a setting that makes sense for those characters.

(3) making a setting that could host an infinite number of PC types while still making sense.​

Please note that (2) specifically has the characters made before the setting.

If you mean, why does the setting need to be created before play begins, well the obvious answer is that there are various degrees of "creation" and I wouldn't advocate creating the number of fleas of every dog of every town prior to play starting (or, for that matter, after, unless you have PCs who are flea census takers).

As I said earlier,

Obviously, if you don't care about world depth, these problems can just be hand-waved away.​

OTOH, I believe that some reasonable level of preparation is crucial to the success of a well-run campaign. This prep doesn't have to be stat block prep, mind you -- for a lot of things, it is more important to know Who, What, When, Where, and Why. That way, you can seed clues about potential future conflicts, trouble brewing, etc., right from the get go. It eliminates the question, "Where was the BBEG when we were 1st level?" because the PCs know the answer by that point -- the BBEG used to be their friend.

Of course, different people have different playstyles, too, and some don't care for world depth, or don't require the depth to be as...deep. If that's what floats your boat, then go for it, but I was stating what I believe makes the best D&D experience. YMMV.

 

[pemerton]

making the setting is inherently more work than making the characters, so that if you wait to make the setting until the PCs are developed, you will either have an underdeveloped world or you will have a very long wait to use those PCs (which also contains a potential loss of interest in doing so).

Obviously, if you don't care about world depth, these problems can just be hand-waved away.

it is more important to know Who, What, When, Where, and Why. That way, you can seed clues about potential future conflicts, trouble brewing, etc., right from the get go. It eliminates the question, "Where was the BBEG when we were 1st level?"

A world can be deep without being pre-planned - it's just that it will probably be deep in different respects. It will probably not have a high degree of "realistic" depth. But consistent in-game causality (which tells us how the BBEG grew up from the beginning of the campaign) is not the only sort of depth. If the setting evolves in play, in response to the choices of the players, it may have a high degree of thematic and/or dramatic depth - and any desired in-game causality can be ret-conned in via player-GM collaboration. I believe that Jonathan Tweet created the setting for Over the Edge in this way.

I think it bears stating (or repeating): Groups often want a mix of these & enjoy the mix varying from campaign to campaign. We have to be careful to not carry these kinds of divisions too far.

<snip>

I think all DMs need to cultivate their skills in all these areas while trying to find the right mix for the game, the group, & the context.

I don't want to exagerate divisions, but equally I don't think there is any point eliding what are genuine differences of preference in the approach to play. Ignoring or denying these differences, or insisting that one approach rather than another is "true" roleplaying, leads to mechanical and campaign design that pretends to be "one size fits all" but is really supportive of one approach rather than another. It also leads to unnecessary clashes between players and GMs who have different priorities.

This is what I introduced a Legacy mechanic to do. Of course, in this case, I am really trying to overcome one of my own limitations -- if I design the way that the setting moves and grows, then its liable to become distressingly redundant based upon my own preferences and defaults. The Legacy mechanic is designed to allow players more input into the world, and thus make the world "breath" a little more than it otherwise would.

Basically, at 1st level and at every 5th level, a player is given the option to add something to his character or change something about the world.

This is a good example of the interaction between mechanics and play style. This sort of mechanic is excellent for giving players metagame influence over the campaign world and plot. But it would be anathema to a group who think that only the GM should have metagame influence, and that the role of the players is confined to the in-game resolution of action through playing their PCs.

Therefore, any rules supplement that introduced this mechanic would have to explain clearly what sort of play it supports, and what sort of play it is incompatible with. But this sort of explanation can only be given if we are prepared to recognise that when it comes to roleplaying mechanics, one size definitely does not fit all.

I can understand why many RPG publishers don't want to acknowledge this, because it has implications for the commerical appeal of their product. But this is all the more reason why ordinary roleplayers should be ready to acknowledge it.

 

[RFisher]

Obviously, if you don't care about world depth, these problems can just be hand-waved away.

This is probably the crucial point. At least concerning the campaign I was talking about. Any depth in the setting was probably only created as it was needed.

I don't want to exagerate divisions, but equally I don't think there is any point eliding what are genuine differences of preference in the approach to play. Ignoring or denying these differences, or insisting that one approach rather than another is "true" roleplaying, leads to mechanical and campaign design that pretends to be "one size fits all" but is really supportive of one approach rather than another. It also leads to unnecessary clashes between players and GMs who have different priorities.

Agreed. I guess the point I was trying to make is just that the different styles aren't usually mutually exclusive. Although one style may be the prominent style for a group--which should be the focus, completely neglecting the others can lead to dissatisfaction as well. Likewise, the dominant style for a group may drift over time, & you have to be sensitive to that.