The GM's World, the Players' Campaign

[Krachek]

I think that DM should leave enough blank space in their world building to add new races, character concept, faction, god and religion, bring in by the players.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't accept that there is an inherent lack of depth in "just in time" setting development. I don't think a setting is richer or deeper because the GM has imagined stuff about it that is not part of play.

A player might be unsatisfied for whatever reason - eg they don't like the approach to action resolution, which necessarily must be based on something other than GM extrapolation from established setting - but I don't think depth is an element.

Maybe not depth, but a substantial fraction of players value the volume of material they can pursue away from table that are available for settings like Forgotten Realms, or Golarian, or Middle Earth, and then have that pursued information become relevant at the table.

 

[pointofyou]

It's true that I don't know the Dresden Files game, and have only read the Fate Core rulebook. But 8 hours seem very long to me.

It was and the setting that came out of it was one that I rapidly came to dislike running. At this point I find it's faster and easier just to make up the setting myself plus I end up with a setting that I like.

 

[pointofyou]

Or you let the players make up the relevant details that are within their purview (the names of their hometown, their home region, important NPCs that they've met or are strongly familiar with, etc.). This helps to avoid the isekai effect, as @Campbell mentioned upthread.

Having the players create the relevant details is consistent with making sure they have a handle on the setting. I do this mostly in session zero these days but occasionally I'll ask the players questions about the setting and use their answers.

Was it a case were not all the participants were familiar with the Dresden Files setting, and a lot of time was spent bringing them up to speed? That was definitely the case when I played in a DF game, not everyone knew the source material which made the game not as engaging as it could have been.

This was a case where we were using those rules to establish the setting for a non-Dresden game. It was also a case where there were some people who were fizzing with ideas and some people who weren't. Getting any input from some of the people at the table was slow difficult work. Fate Core wasn't out yet or we probably would have tried the simpler approach to setting-construction from there.

 

[TwoSix]

This was a case where we were using those rules to establish the setting for a non-Dresden game. It was also a case where there were some people who were fizzing with ideas and some people who weren't. Getting any input from some of the people at the table was slow difficult work. Fate Core wasn't out yet or we probably would have tried the simpler approach to setting-construction from there.

Yea, using the DF game as an ersatz Fate Core would definitely slow people down. Makes sense.

 

[pemerton]

I think it is pretty inevitable that a setting mostly improvised on spot will on average have less depth than one that is planned with time and consideration.

If one could improvise equally good stuff than one can plan with time, why on earth do authors spend years, in some cases decades, crafting their books instead of just improvising a complete work in hours?

I write as a key part of my job - not fiction, but non-fiction prose. Rewriting and editing serves all sorts of purposes - clarity, elegance of style, tightness of structure. Sometimes an argument becomes tighter after weeks or months of work. Sometimes the argument was all there from the get-go, and the rewriting and editing serves only those other purposes.

When it comes to writing fiction, I would think that some rewriting increases depth, but I would also expect that much of it serves those other purposes.

When it comes to RPGing, I've seen a fair bit of setting material, and created it myself. I don't think much of it is very deep. I guess Glorantha is an exception, though I'm not as familiar with it as perhaps I should be.

Let's take the GM out of it and use a pre-published setting like the Forgotten Realms versus one we are creating in play at the moment. Some players like knowing there is a deep well of world lore and detail that is always within reach of discovery. That is WHY some players engage with RPGs at all, in fact. Those elements -- by definition -- do not exist in a create as you play game. And for those players that think the depth of a setting is a key component of the joy of play, they are not going to be satisfied with the ad hoc nature of setting development happening at the moment at the table.

Maybe not depth, but a substantial fraction of players value the volume of material they can pursue away from table that are available for settings like Forgotten Realms, or Golarian, or Middle Earth, and then have that pursued information become relevant at the table.

If by "depth" of setting is meant not profundity but volume of stuff that's been written which locates itself within the setting, then sure - it's a tautology that if less has been written there's less stuff.

I took depth to mean profundity or significance or thematic weight or similar.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When it comes to writing fiction, I would think that some rewriting increases depth, but I would also expect that much of it serves those other purposes.

I'm sure a lot of it does. Doesn't still change the fact that you have better chance of coming up with good stuff if you take your time. This to me is so blatantly self evident for pretty much any facet of human endeavour that I find it utterly bizarre that we are even arguing about this.

I took depth to mean profundity or significance or thematic weight or similar.

Doesn't change anything.

 

[aramis erak]

If you are going to allow players to author material, don't prep that material.

prep isn't just writing. In many cases, player-generated content needs to be read, collated, formatted, reconciled...

I find prep for player generated settings steeper workloads than GM set-up... but a wholly different nature of prep.

 

[Reynard]

prep isn't just writing. In many cases, player-generated content needs to be read, collated, formatted, reconciled...

I find prep for player generated settings steeper workloads than GM set-up... but a wholly different nature of prep.

Okay, but I was responding to the players in the example undermining your prep. I was just saying that if you want the players to define an element of the game, don't prep that element in advance. Let them define it.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, I was asking if you homebrewed a world where GMs aren't homebrewing for their own self-gratification.


You are still talking about this solely in terms of discovering the world. My point is that even if I add details to the world as a player, I may be discovering something about my character in the process. Discovery in the game is not limited to discovery of the world.

These two paragraphs are talking about quite different things.

The first refers to worldbuilding that happens before play begins. There aren't any characters yet.

The second refers to worldbuilding during play, as evidenced by the 'discovering something about my character' piece.

Nothing wrong with either, but they're very different things. When you're adding details it's just that: you're adding details to something the basics of which are already in place; put there by the GM before play began.