The Art and Science of Worldbuilding For Gameplay [+]

[Voadam]

I typically use modules and adventure paths as my adventure bases but run games with those modules in a fairly sandbox way in my homebrew mashup setting.

I think worldbuilding a kitchen sink type setting is fairly useful for those types of purposes. Golarion or Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or Midgard types of setups where there is a lot of different flavors and options of places. So it is then easy to place and run a gothic horror mad scientist adventure or an Arabian nights adventure or a hunt down the apocalypse cult one.

In my mashup setting I have a bunch of individual setting pieces I like a lot with specific flavors (individual Golarion nations, Ptolus Empire, Freeport, others) and it is easy for me to throw in different modules that I am interested in running. I have run Freeport City/Pirate/Cthulhu investigation campaigns, a deepest Nyambe fantasy African one shot, a Reign of Winter Baba Yaga/Narnia White Witch/Fey campaign, a Gothic Horror campaign, and an Iron Gods sci-fi-fantasy mashup campaign, and more all in the same world backdrop with connections making sense for me.

 

[MGibster]

I am coming at this prom the perspective that the GM's time is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited from a world building perspective. We can assume they have been building there world for 40 years as their primary hobby (or whatever justification you need).

I'm reminded of a professor of mine I had for an undergraduate philosophy course. I'll paraphrase: "Philosophy is supposed to be useful. It's not a bunch of 'Oh, we are not real' baloney. It's something you should be able to apply in real to make decisions." I realize this is a plus thread, but coming at the issue from the perspective that the GM has limitless time is of limited use. None of us has unlimited time, so any guiding principles behind world building that requires a GM with unlimited time is not practical. i.e. It's of very limited use.

All we are is dust in the wind, dude. -- Ted Theodore Logan

 

[Voadam]

For adventuring gameplay purposes I am a fan of points of light settings like 4e D&D which can have huge fleshed out multiple fallen civilizations and extensive history, but the current setup is lots of isolated areas fairly on their own.

This sets up the PCs as the natural potential heroes when problems arise as there are no armies or other organizations to take care of things.

Fleshing out the worldbuilding of the fallen empires can set up things like the ruins and dungeons of the world so they hang together or tell an unspooling story for exploration.

I feel this ties in well to a lot of default D&D adventuring which are often rescue missions, stop the evil missions, and/or dungeon explorations of some type.

 

[Reynard]

I'm reminded of a professor of mine I had for an undergraduate philosophy course. I'll paraphrase: "Philosophy is supposed to be useful. It's not a bunch of 'Oh, we are not real' baloney. It's something you should be able to apply in real to make decisions." I realize this is a plus thread, but coming at the issue from the perspective that the GM has limitless time is of limited use. None of us has unlimited time, so any guiding principles behind world building that requires a GM with unlimited time is not practical. i.e. It's of very limited use.

All we are is dust in the wind, dude. -- Ted Theodore Logan

It is just a conceit to enable the conversation to stay on topic. Specifically, what kinds of worldbuilding techniques and elements support using the setting in actual play. And remember, I am not just talking about your homebrew. I am talking about world building broadly, so that includes what features published settings should have to make thoe products more useful in actual play (such as Eberron's Big mysteries as well as adventure focused world building).

If you don't want to engage with the premise, I can't force you to. And if you prefer to argue about how best to use prep time, I can't stop you. But I set the parametes I preferred for this discussion pretty clearly in the OP.

 

[MGibster]

f you don't want to engage with the premise, I can't force you to. And if you prefer to argue about how best to use prep time, I can't stop you. But I set the parametes I preferred for this discussion pretty clearly in the OP.

I read the opening post but I missed the part where we were assuming unlimited time for world building efforts. Very well, I'll leave you to it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It seems pretty pointless to me to ponder whether a setting where every corner was filled and every detail preplanned would be beneficial or not. Because that's never gonna happen anyway, so it literally doesn't matter.

Now what I personally do is start with broad strokes stuff and then slowly add detail, focusing on the areas that will actually be featured in play. I mean sure, I often also design stuff that is not currently relevant, because I might find it interesting. And then it comes up when it becomes relevant, which might be never. Which is fine.

 

[pemerton]

That's not a limit on gameplay, that's a set of conditions for the situation in which the characters find themselves. There's no imperative that there should be a possibility that a secret passage should be found if there isn't one specified.

I don't understand the distinction between "a set of conditions for a situation in which the characters find themselves" and "a limit on gameplay". Obviously not all limits on gameplay consist in such sets of conditions, but I don't see how such sets of conditions aren't one form of a limit on gameplay.

No, I was positing that the PCs do things in the world, go places and take actions and make choices, and that changes the world because the PCs actions have consequences. I wasn't talking about players deciding things about the world.

Yes. The "you" in the post you quoted referred to @Emberashh. My point was that Emberashh was positing an approach that contradicts the OP.

 

[pemerton]

I believe the disconnect you're having is that you aren't recognizing that an action is taking place in that example. When the player directs their character to search for a Secret entrance, their success at finding one (through whatever resolution mechanism the game uses) is what says if there is one definitively. Failure doesn't mean there wouldn't be one to find, but it does mean whoever tries again will have to succeed against a higher difficulty, and that the question of whether there is one or not has an unknowable answer until someone succeeds.

I'm familiar with this sort of approach to resolution. My point is that it is at odds with the approach to setting that is set out in the OP. (See also @Renard's post #60).

 

[pemerton]

Essentially, the world building takes into account not "the next adventure" but "adventure" in a broad sense.

So is this thread about RPG world building in general, or world building for D&D play?

 

[MichaelSomething]

Want a ton of detail? Go get Plotus.

Want just a basic premise? Get the 5E Spelljammer set.