Let's Talk About RPG Worldbuilding

[AnotherGuy]

I've come up with the most succint view on world-building that I can, which is this:

World-building is the appeal to authority of RPGing - a circular process by which a GM both invents the need for such authority and then invokes it to justify their ongoing position as the controller of play.

Sure, for some tables that definition works, but I also know players that would deem a GM as lazy if there had been no world-building. Time is limited and their definition of play does not include taking on the responsibility of world-building. People want different things at their RPG tables.

 

[pemerton]

I've come up with the most succint view on world-building that I can, which is this:

World-building is the appeal to authority of RPGing - a circular process by which a GM both invents the need for such authority and then invokes it to justify their ongoing position as the controller of play.

This relates to my posts upthread (#2 and #36). I see the function of setting in RPGing being to support play - ie to support the players engaging and shaping the shared fiction through their action declarations for their PCs.

So the starting point for GM authority is in the context of action resolution - what is the GM's role going into this (ie framing) and coming out of it (ie consequences/"what happpens next")? Taking it as a given that the answers to this provide a discrete role for the GM rather than total authority over the fiction (otherwise what are the players doing at the table?), we can then infer what we need in the way of setting and who is best placed to create it.

This produces a different approach to "worldbuilding" from one in which the GM does it unilaterally and then uses it as the yardstick against which all action declarations are measured.

 

[amethal]

First, the player players, normally, receive 1-2 pages containing a general summary of the various culture cultures (a few sentences on each). Next is,another page to page and a half based on the culture that interests a given player. These pages will have more indepth information on the culture (including available classes, class variants, and or subclasses found within the culture), notable NPCs, some current events and other notable information. Finally, based on certain class choices (e.g. clerics ), they may get an additional 1-2 pages. For clerics, it would have information on vestments, holy days, tenets, stricture, tailored spell lists to deity, etc. Only after they have read the relevant information, will I consider player submitted concepts, goals, background, etc. for a character (and this is before a player can create their characer mechanically).
If I had a player not wanting to read, they will have to listen to me go over the general and then read the remaining information before they can make a character. If they still do not want to read, they do not play and can find the exit. There is no exception.

That's very thorough. Do you have full page write-ups of all of the cultures, or just the ones players have expressed an interest in? Similarly, do you write out the holy days etc. for all religions, or just the ones PCs choose to play clerics of?

 

[amethal]

I think it is helpful to consider whether worldbuilding is (1) an element of play, (2) a resource for play, or (3) an activity that is fun for the worldbuilder but largely independent of play.

Assuming you have an actual game which you are running, I think it would be all three - although I use a broad definition of (1) to include anything that actually comes up during play, including things the GM has made up on the spot.

 

[Ixal]

Sadly many people ignore worldbuilding in D&D, including WotC, and limit it to things that are immediately useful to adventuring.
That leaves the setting rather bare bones. Worldbuilding which goes beyond "this is a possible patron" makes the game much more immersive and allows the players to be much more creative when adventuring without relying on "say yes" GMs which in the end results in a disjointed mess.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The basic function of a dungeon, in classic D&D, is to pose a challenge which the players hope to beat by declaring actions for their PCs. The fundamental measure of winning, or beating the dungeon, is treasure which then yields XP.

This isn't the function of the larger setting even in a lot of D&D play. And that's before we get into more technical matters like the relationship between the fiction of the setting and the processes of action declaration and action resolution - part of the way that dungeons work is by providing "artificially" thin fiction that permits a very particular relationship to emerge between it and play. This relationship can't be established for any remotely verisimilitudinous setting. Even a mediaeval village has too much going on - both in material terms and social terms - to be documented satisfactorily in a dungeon-style key.

Perhaps this is one of those areas we will just have to disagree on.
Entering a chamber full of goodies with various possible PC interactions I find is similar to entering a bustling tavern.

I do find it incongruent that you're establishing such a specific divide especially with the "too much going on" particularly because your AD&D argument for shared fiction relies on the paladin questing for his horse solely compared to everything else that needs to be included in the setting for material and social terms.

 

[Aldarc]

I've come up with the most succint view on world-building that I can, which is this:

World-building is the appeal to authority of RPGing - a circular process by which a GM both invents the need for such authority and then invokes it to justify their ongoing position as the controller of play.

Is it the appeal to authority of RPGing or to GMing or to Setting?

 

[MGibster]

World-building is the appeal to authority of RPGing - a circular process by which a GM both invents the need for such authority and then invokes it to justify their ongoing position as the controller of play.

This is less a definition and more a political statement I'd expect to hear from someone shouting to a crowd of people standing in line at Gen Con, "Now is the time for the proletariat to seize the means of gaming from the bourgeoisie game masters! Gamers of the world unite!" The definition you've provided is next to useless for two reasons: It doesn't actually tell me what world building is. It also fails to take into account games like Dresden Files and Apocalypse World where the GM and the players collaborate to build the setting.

 

[MGibster]

Sadly many people ignore worldbuilding in D&D, including WotC, and limit it to things that are immediately useful to adventuring.

It's true. There are only so many hours in the day and I can't tell you the number of times I've spent detailing some aspect of an adventure or setting only for my players to respond with a resounding "meh!" After a while, you tend to focus on what you expect will get traction. Though that can backfire as well as sometimes players focus on some minor detail you haven't fleshed out and you gotta run with it.

 

[Greg K]

That's very thorough. Do you have full page write-ups of all of the cultures, or just the ones players have expressed an interest in? Similarly, do you write out the holy days etc. for all religions, or just the ones PCs choose to play clerics of?

I have full page write-ups of all the cultures. They sort of resemble a mix of a cultural anthopology breakdown of cultural elements and Rolemaster Standard System cultural descriptions.
The cleric stuff is done by deity and I have those prepared as well (focusing on major deities). However, the deities in several neighboring cultures are often the same deities, but expressed different culturally (which cuts down on the work).