Ray Winnger's "Countrycraft" Article from Dragon #293

[Corinth]

Apart from the adaptation of Birthright's rules for realm administration to D&D3e, this article does three things of note: recap the existing six Rules of Dungeoncraft, introduce the Seventh Rule of Dungeoncraft and go off on a rant that relates to the new rule.

The new rule, BTW, is "Build a world, not a story; let the players tell the stories." (The actual text is longer, but this is the message.) I'm down with this; it's so much easier for me as a GM to just worry about making the world run and let the players--through their PCs--decide which story will be told.

Comments? (Oh, and it would help if you've read the article.)

 

[kitoy]

I agree, this is a great article with a lot of "meaty" ideas to add to your campaign. However, I found that the rules, as printed, made my countries a little more populated than I wanted. I guess the nations in my campaign world are a lot larger than average and I ended up with populations and armies in the tens of millions. I have some tweaking to do, but it's a usable system.

I do think that the rules are great, they take care of a lot of the "backstory" for you and really enhance the feeling that the world moves on with or without the characters.

 

[Rune]

Agreed--one of the best articles in a while.

About the population problem: it shouldn't be too much of a problem if you consider that it only applies to populated areas (which is, admittedly, not what the rules say, but his example certainly supports it). If you know an area in your realm is a wilderness, don't include it in the resources or population stuff. People tend to drift into places where they are safer and there has always been safety in numbers. It is reasonable to assume that some areas will not be populated and other areas may be more densely populated than the average population would indicate.

 

[Chronosome]

I think it's good stuff, but I'd be hard-pressed to use it without
a computer application...great premise, though, letting the world
run itself...

 

[Desdichado]

I think he's right and he's wrong. You don't want to create plots, but you don't want to just create a world either. What you want to create are situations to which the players can react as they please. For this, you can't have a plot but you can't just have a world either. Otherwise, your PCs sit around in your wonderful little world twiddling their thumbs, or drinking away all their game time in some bar.

Now, I know from reading some of his articles in the past that situations really are what he creates, not just worlds, but this article certainly doesn't spell that out.

 

[Rubeus Hagrid]

I just found it endless amusing that it was right after the article about how to plot like a Television Series (my own style, BTW).

 

[LostSoul]

You don't want to create plots, but you don't want to just create a world either.

Your world has to have a lot of tension (or tension that the PCs are going to come across) or else they'll just retire to the comfortable life in the fields.

That's why Star Wars is a good setting. 'You're just sitting in the bar, and... a group of stormtroopers comes in and starts detaining people for "questioning".'

 

[rounser]

The new rule, BTW, is "Build a world, not a story; let the players tell the stories."

At first glance this seems to be an example of " there is an answer to every question which is simple, neat, complete...and wrong." Maybe there's some provisos he adds later, but the surface logic seems flawed.

I agree that campaigns based around a predetermined story can railroad and frustrate players, but urging people to go directly in the opposite design direction isn't necessarily what the doctor ordered.

As an alternative, say you set up a multitude of little stories that the PCs can select from once you present hooks or threads. That's not focusing on building a world or a story, but bringing your world to life with lots of little stories that players can interact with - and it doesn't railroad them into a corner and take away their choice, which is the approach which I'd assume he's really attacking.

 

[Chronosome]

Another way to look at it: You set up this great self-running
automaton of a world, with smooth rules and actions...

Then you throw a big wrench into it, and watch as PCs and
the respective countries react and try to pick up the pieces...
Ray's "magical meteor" is a great example of that method.

 

[Agamon]

I think he's right and he's wrong. You don't want to create plots, but you don't want to just create a world either. What you want to create are situations to which the players can react as they please. For this, you can't have a plot but you can't just have a world either. Otherwise, your PCs sit around in your wonderful little world twiddling their thumbs, or drinking away all their game time in some bar.

Now, I know from reading some of his articles in the past that situations really are what he creates, not just worlds, but this article certainly doesn't spell that out.

I thought it did. When I first read the Rule, I thought to myself, "Now hold on there...whatchu talkin' 'bout?" But after he explained what he meant, I wholeheartedly agreed.

He says don't create a situation and insist, or even expect, the players to notice or do anything about it. Create the situation and just let it happen. Let the players influence the situation (even by choosing not to influence it at all). Don't plan too far ahead, react to the players reactions and let the world live in the players' eyes: it's not just there for their benefit, but it can be influenced by them.

It's perfect, the best DMing advice anyone could give. And if I thought that part of the article was great...wow. I like how the "realm rules" arel setup. I have to admit, events IMC all come off the top of my head, which is okay, but this more formalized route can really be a springboard of ideas, not to mention that it's not influenced by my bias (of course, I get to interpret what ot all means to my campaign, but that's a good thing...can't have the specifics completely random, that would suck).

I always saw the BR domain rules as pretty weak. I like Ray's version though. Very nice.