What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Ovinomancer]

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] , let me wander around my head aloud for a minute. This is kind of where my brain was going:

* I was thinking about the parallels of Blades in the Dark and the Mexican Drug Wars particularly in the states of Sinaloa and Durango (which has also spread plenty elsewhere). I was thinking about how when a vacuum of power emerges (where a cartel which has dominated the drug trade without rival in a particular area suddenly has the head of its snake cut off or is defaced/defanged), the place goes from a (very) relative order and placidity to an eruption of sustained barbarism, violence, and destabilization. The locals are besieged emotionally, physically, and economically due to the cartel warfare. That is how you end up with the extreme transformation of Ciudad Juarez in only a few short years.

* I was thinking of parallels in Blades in the Dark where Bluecoats, Council-members, and Magistrates can be bought off in order to (a) get in on the action and (b) "keep the peace (status quo)" by ensuring that the dominance hierarchy of a certain place remains intact (and the eruption of violence/destabilization via a power vacuum doesn't emerge).

Blades in the Dark's premise, thematic and machanicaly machinery depends on these tropes.

So here is what I meant by the below:



Conversely, 4e's thematic impetus depends on the above paradigm being flat untenable.

The Dragon's (or whatever stand-in) protection racket compared to the encroaching darkness (due to the vacuum of power) MUSTN'T yield the citizenry or the heroes doing the math and coming up with "its better this way." The fallout of the Dragon's despotism must be punitive enough (when compared to the alternative bad) that it emboldens rebellion. Otherwise, the entire impetus for the sort of romantic heroism that 4e pushes toward becomes less charged (or it loses its charge completely).

With Torchbearer and Beyond the Wall, the desperation and related impetus for moving beyond the sanctity of the city's walls into the foreboding, deep, dark wilds in becomes rather (but not fully) muted because the Dragon (as happens with overwhelming apex predators/power-brokers) will have driven out that encroaching darkness, thereby artificially expanding the local (and solely relevant) "Point of Light." The important themes of desperation and claustrophobia become subdued.

I think all of this ties very well into the thread's premise -- worldbuilding of this kind directly and openly affects play, but isn't developed in play. I also think that few would really be interested in dealing with such political truths -- the fun is in killing the evil overlord dragon, not in dealing with the repercussions of the power vacuum created. That said, I think that this kind of consideration goes directly to the kind of game that will be played. Blades, for one, has a clear method of dealing with power vacuums, and it would be nearly impossible to actually disrupt the power structure in blades without having the holes filled nearly immediately through the gameplay. Or, you could, but you'd be ignoring a cornerstone of the built setting to do so.

I will say these are the kinds of things I think about in worldbuilding. My last 'built' world had stable nationstates that had mostly pacified their held areas, so there was a lot of travel to border areas or beyond for adventure. However, the adversary in that game was a force that was manifesting everywhere, so there were plenty of interacting in civilized areas. In fact, the destabilization of nations was a part of the game.

 

[Lanefan]

I think all of this ties very well into the thread's premise -- worldbuilding of this kind directly and openly affects play, but isn't developed in play. I also think that few would really be interested in dealing with such political truths -- the fun is in killing the evil overlord dragon, not in dealing with the repercussions of the power vacuum created.

Oddly enough, this is almost exactly what's happened in one branch of my current campaign over the long run: the PCs took down the long-time Emperor (a lich) of a nasty realm, and then spent the next year or so involving themselves in the resulting civil war as various warlords (mostly the main slave lords from A-3) tried to take power. They then got stuck in what's become an extended side trek to fulfill a quest, and left the area.

The civil war is still ongoing in the background and it'll no doubt become relevant again someday.

This ties into worldbuilding in that when I set up that realm it was with the specific intent of a party someday taking out the Emperor, but both the lead-up series of adventures and the way the takedown came about played out vastly differently to anything I had in mind ahead of time.

Lanefan

 

[Aldarc]

I also think that few would really be interested in dealing with such political truths -- the fun is in killing the evil overlord dragon, not in dealing with the repercussions of the power vacuum created.

And I always wanted to run a D&D campaign dealing with the repercussions of a tarrasque cross-country rampage that ended with the honorable deaths of the previous generation of heroes (and villains). Homes destroyed, both human and "monster." Lives lost. Countries are rebuilding. Countries are scheming for advantage. People and monsters are migrating. Ruins were uncovered by the rampage. Sure, killing the evil overlord dragon offers a more tangible psychological reward, but I do think that there is a lot of potential in dealing with the power vacuum in the wake of a big bad.

 

[Lanefan]

And I always wanted to run a D&D campaign dealing with the repercussions of a tarrasque cross-country rampage that ended with the honorable deaths of the previous generation of heroes (and villains). Homes destroyed, both human and "monster." Lives lost. Countries are rebuilding. Countries are scheming for advantage. People and monsters are migrating. Ruins were uncovered by the rampage. Sure, killing the evil overlord dragon offers a more tangible psychological reward, but I do think that there is a lot of potential in dealing with the power vacuum in the wake of a big bad.

Yeah, I could get behind this; though I'd probably break things even further such that there really aren't any (or many) organized countries or empires left and it's every petty warlord for him/herself.

And with most forms of order having been somewhat shattered, it'd be the fantasy version of the wild west. The perfect situation for a marauding bunch of murderhobos!

Lanefan

 

[Aenghus]

Particularly in my D&D I prefer fairly conventional action adventure where the PCs are sufficiently "good" to be the good guy protagonists. I see it as a problem in functional world-building to design a world where this seems reasonable and isn't irritating, at least for those players willing to go half-way on the issue. As a referee or player I try to be very clear that I like white hats to be viable and if they aren't I want to know in advance so I can consider walking away.

In the action adventure genre as I understand it, the problems of the PCs can be solved by action-focused plans, the planning may be anywhere from non-existent to complex, and where there might be temporary setbacks or even ultimate defeat, the players get an understanding that they aren't wasting their time, they get to have a positive effect on the setting with no mean-minded clawbacks. Heroism is possible and not futile or counterproductive.

YMMV. I understand there are loads of people who prefer greyer, dark or gritty games or who might appreciate no win scenarios, or complex problems with no PC-available solution and more power to them. I, for one, don't, most of the time.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Particularly in my D&D I prefer fairly conventional action adventure where the PCs are sufficiently "good" to be the good guy protagonists. I see it as a problem in functional world-building to design a world where this seems reasonable and isn't irritating, at least for those players willing to go half-way on the issue. As a referee or player I try to be very clear that I like white hats to be viable and if they aren't I want to know in advance so I can consider walking away.

In the action adventure genre as I understand it, the problems of the PCs can be solved by action-focused plans, the planning may be anywhere from non-existent to complex, and where there might be temporary setbacks or even ultimate defeat, the players get an understanding that they aren't wasting their time, they get to have a positive effect on the setting with no mean-minded clawbacks. Heroism is possible and not futile or counterproductive.

YMMV. I understand there are loads of people who prefer greyer, dark or gritty games or who might appreciate no win scenarios, or complex problems with no PC-available solution and more power to them. I, for one, don't, most of the time.

I think both types of game have their interesting points, actually. In fact I have found that the best stories come when the players have some commitment to one or another. Either they are really into the whole convoluted and nuanced shades-of-grey or they're really into their gung-ho I'm a big shiny hero (or villian). Its the times when the group cannot find a way to commit to any vision of play that are in danger of failing to gel.

 

[Fitz Mac]

[MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION] I play with a group in Cork as well( 6 PC's ) , we are playing 5E D&D, always on the look out for more PC's. Thats why I asked.Plus I'm with a group that plays bi-weekly , over 50 PC's at 9-10 tables. So we are always up for more D&D players or DM's(Gm's) to join.

 

[Lanefan]

I think both types of game have their interesting points, actually. In fact I have found that the best stories come when the players have some commitment to one or another. Either they are really into the whole convoluted and nuanced shades-of-grey or they're really into their gung-ho I'm a big shiny hero (or villian). Its the times when the group cannot find a way to commit to any vision of play that are in danger of failing to gel.

Though this is usually true, I've seen (and DMed!) parties whose very inability to gel was itself a large part of the ongoing story - and fun - for quite some time.

Lan-"chaos for the win!"-efan

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, I could get behind this; though I'd probably break things even further such that there really aren't any (or many) organized countries or empires left and it's every petty warlord for him/herself.

And with most forms of order having been somewhat shattered, it'd be the fantasy version of the wild west. The perfect situation for a marauding bunch of murderhobos!

That would be the general idea. You are selling the horrors of what the tarrasque "means" as a monster not through saying/threatening what would happen should the players stop its awakening but through showing the actual disaster, calamity, and chaos that followed in the wake of its defeat.

IMHO, this would make a great startup for a setting, much like the wake of the Last War acts as the presumed starting point for Eberron. There is a lot of (campaign, sandbox, or story now) adventure potential in the aftermath of disaster. Though I would maybe go less Wild West and more rampaging monster shatters the Off-Brand Roman Empire. Remnants of the prior order on the fringe of the fractured empire. "Barbarian" hordes of humanoids looking for new homes after their old ones were destroyed in the lands where the tarrasque first trampled under foot. Opportunistic warlords itching for a chance to make a kingdom for themselves and preying upon weakened lands. New religious movements making sudden inroads. Rebellions sparking like wildfire from long-brewing tensions. Is the apocalypse nigh? Ancient, forgotten, primordial evils could return, but what could possibly be worse than the tarrasque? Is anyone even paying the risk of these evils any mind?

 

[Lanefan]

That would be the general idea. You are selling the horrors of what the tarrasque "means" as a monster not through saying/threatening what would happen should the players stop its awakening but through showing the actual disaster, calamity, and chaos that followed in the wake of its defeat.

Assuming, of course, that it really weas defeated and not just driven off...

IMHO, this would make a great startup for a setting, much like the wake of the Last War acts as the presumed starting point for Eberron. There is a lot of (campaign, sandbox, or story now) adventure potential in the aftermath of disaster. Though I would maybe go less Wild West and more rampaging monster shatters the Off-Brand Roman Empire. Remnants of the prior order on the fringe of the fractured empire. "Barbarian" hordes of humanoids looking for new homes after their old ones were destroyed in the lands where the tarrasque first trampled under foot. Opportunistic warlords itching for a chance to make a kingdom for themselves and preying upon weakened lands. New religious movements making sudden inroads. Rebellions sparking like wildfire from long-brewing tensions. Is the apocalypse nigh? Ancient, forgotten, primordial evils could return, but what could possibly be worse than the tarrasque? Is anyone even paying the risk of these evils any mind?

And after that campaign's kinda run its course and needs to end you pull the tarrasque out from where it's been recovering from its wounds (as it wasn't really defeated last time) and let it TPK the party.

Then you start over. Same setting, same situation, new characters, 5 years later...lather rinse repeat for a lifetime of fun gaming!