What is Depth in Worldbuilding terms? How to achieve it?

[Odhanan]

More worldbuilding detail isn't deeper, it's just more detail. Depth does not flow from the amount of off-hand comments about elven tea ceremonies you can rifle off.

Interesting. I agree I think. But then, what is "depth" in the context of worldbuilding? How would you define it?

What makes a setting "deep"? What are the techniques allowing DM and players to achieve it as it relates to the games they play and beyond, obviously, to the setting in which these adventures take place?

 

[Imaro]

I'm not sure I agree with the quoted post.

Depth is detail and thoroughness. Which has more depth?

The Order of the Flaming Star: A monastic order situated in the northern mountains.

The Order of the Flaming Star: A monastic order composed of beings from a dimension where thought is action. They are skilled in the ways of psionics and only teach those who survive the Test of the Seven Darks in their arts. They have a single fortress like monastery in the Kakhili mountain range, where their apparent harmony with nature has allowed them to use flora and fauna as defense against unwelcome guests.

Now it goes without saying that nothing has depth(though I believe it can have "potential" depth) in a campaign until it is either

a.) Introduced to the characters( They decide to research the different fighting styles their characters could pursue and discover the above. Or hear rumors of "magical" monks that may teach them a new way of fighting, etc.)

b.) Affects the characters( They are attacked, hired, etc. by The Order of the Flaming Star)

Sorry but in my oppinion, when introduced to the players, the second example has way more "depth" than the first.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Interesting. I agree I think. But then, what is "depth" in the context of worldbuilding? How would you define it?

What makes a setting "deep"? What are the techniques allowing DM and players to achieve it as it relates to the games they play and beyond, obviously, to the setting in which these adventures take place?

Secrets, mysteries that can be solved, history insofar as it explains the present, reasons for things.

A NPC who hates orcs is surface. An NPC who hates orcs because he is secretly a half-orc is that little bit deeper.

 

[hong]

The rule of thumb I use is: the setting has depth, when I feel that I'm no longer performing without a safety net when I make stuff up.

 

[Crothian]

Depth is not just any details; it's the right details.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Depth is not just any details; it's the right details.

Agreed. It's also how the details are presented.

I see a lot of of examples of descriptive "details" but I come from a "show" not "tell" school of DMing. I find that when the "tell" overwhelms the "show" players get restless and bored.

In Imaro's above example telling them the 1st example with an additional hook would be enough. The players would eventually find out those other details over a period of time instead of having it just thrown at them at once. Information only means something when it means something to the person or people it's meant for, otherwise it's just words...

 

[Darth Shoju]

Agreed. It's also how the details are presented.

I see a lot of of examples of descriptive "details" but I come from a "show" not "tell" school of DMing. I find that when the "tell" overwhelms the "show" players get restless and bored.

In Imaro's above example telling them the 1st example with an additional hook would be enough. The players would eventually find out those other details over a period of time instead of having it just thrown at them at once. Information only means something when it means something to the person or people it's meant for, otherwise it's just words...

I'd agree, but part of the issue goes with how much information did the DM prepare beforehand? If all the DM prepared is the first example Imaro offered, then he doesn't have the info to provide to the players when they inquire (though one would wonder why he gave the hook in the first place). If he gives the first bit but has the rest developed if the players are interested, then that shows depth IMO.

 

[Imaro]

Agreed. It's also how the details are presented.

I see a lot of of examples of descriptive "details" but I come from a "show" not "tell" school of DMing. I find that when the "tell" overwhelms the "show" players get restless and bored.

In Imaro's above example telling them the 1st example with an additional hook would be enough. The players would eventually find out those other details over a period of time instead of having it just thrown at them at once. Information only means something when it means something to the person or people it's meant for, otherwise it's just words...

My point with the above is that in the first example...it's not enough information. These could be actual monks from the PHB, Fighters, etc. If I were playing they just wouldn't seem interesting enough(even with one more hook) to devote a serious amount of time seeking out.

In the second, example it specifically serves as an opportunity to introduce psionics into the campaign. The PC's know they can learn psionics from these particular monks, what possible dangers they may face(nature themed opponents) and how to join them(face the Seven Darks). IMHO the first example is too broadly defined to interest most PC's or it will cause them too assume a variety of things without it serving a specific purpose. The second introduces a fair bit of relevant information and provides incentive to explore further. All this is assuming at least one PC is interested in psionics(though the specifics could be easily changed to represent a specific prestige class, special knowledge of feats, etc.

Now what I "show" them is the specific nature of the defenses(though they should, with the hint, be at least partially prepared for attacks and hindrances based on nature), What the Test of the Seven Darks is, What particular psionic classes these monks follow and can teach, The actual construction and structure of the monastery, etc.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Depth as far as the game is concerned can only be achieved when the details influence or are influenced by PC actions. The interactivity of the world is what is important to the players, so if that interactivity is missing in the details then it doesn't influence them, and it doesn't make an impact on the game. So you can write a detailed history about the kingdom, but really only those aspects that fit into the campaign are really any impact. The rest could have been made up haphazardly during play otherwise. And, by interactivity, I merely mean that its existence changes the flow of the game in some way that would not have occurred without it.

 

[el-remmen]

In my own experience "setting depth" best comes organically.

The reason why Aquerra has so much information about it is because with each campaign it developed more and more from the adventures I chose to run, the actions of the PCs (and the actual types of PCs), and pure world-building as preparation for a particular campaign. All of this was built upon the basic framework descriptions of nations, peoples, religions and history.

It is easier to access, I think, when it has grown slowly over time in a holistic way (I still prefer the top-down approach to start with), as opposed to just writing up a whole of bunch of details that while may fit together well, have no context to make it stick.

If there is an elven tea ceremony then the players know about it because of some scene or adventure involving it, or some scene from a character background took place at one and it was an important detail for some cultural reason - and in the future when it is mentioned again in passing by some NPC, well - even if it is not all the same players it has a little more "reality" attached to it by virtue of its meta-game history, as much as in terms of it being woven into some fictional culture.