What is *worldbuilding* for?

[redrick]

This was the part of your reply that especially stood out to me.

I don't know if you've read [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]'s post just upthread of yours, which I've replied to just upthread of this post. You'll see that I've honed in on a particular episode of play that Nagol describes, that seems like it might be an instance of what you describe in the passage of yours I've quoted. I've asked Nagol some questions about that; if you have any thoughts that are relevant to those questions I've asked, I'd be keen to read them.

I don't really know what the contemporary standard is. I tend to prepare authors, perhaps locations, and ideas for vignettes, that I think might be interesting to use in the game.

Yes, I read [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]'s situation upthread. It's a little different from what I'm talking about, primarily because it involves more work on the part of the DM! In Nagol's case, they are describing a situation where a piece of the DM's fiction is acting autonomously (from the players) and, in certain situations, takes actions behind the curtain that have consequences that might pop up in player view later. I certainly like to think about the actions my major NPCs are taking when the PCs aren't looking, but, for practical reasons, it tends to be pretty limited to the scope of immediate adventures and is more about NPCs reacting to the actions of PCs.

In my case, I'm thinking more about some of the static presumptions of a setting. What I am trying to avoid is the feeling of things being too convenient, because everything that players encounter has been created/put there off the top of the GM's head and in response to their actions. I want some sense that, for instance, the journal is in the drawer in the bedroom, because that is where the journal is. Not because that is where the PCs looked.

The converse of this is that, without care, things become far too inconvenient, and we wouldn't want that either. I consider that to be one of the balance points that I walk as a DM. A world that feels like it existed before the PCs showed up, but also a world that is able to adapt to the needs of an entertaining session. I'd never want a session where, "Door #1 led to the successful completion of the quest. Door #2 led to a delightful though tangential side mission, which might have gotten you all killed. But you chose door #, which, and I'll show you where I wrote this in my notes, led to an endless series of winding passages and empty rooms where absolutely nothing will ever happen. And that's all the time we have for today."

 

[Nagol]

How do the players learn this? In my mind, I'm linking this to the Luke Crane comment I sblocked in the OP, and to the role of divination.

The players only learn about the default trajectory if they do nothing to affect it. Its primary purpose is to make scene-framing on the fly easier. That and the game system in play has mechanics for a type of divination all PCs can attempt that can gather information up to a week in the future so having a base understanding of how things are likely to unfold without interference can be valuable when the player avail themselves of the option.

When the "world" is very confined (both in fictional terms - making relevant fictional positioning fairly easy to achieve - and in corresponding mechanical terms, eg the ranges are short enough for Locate Object and other divination effects to work) then there are clear player moves available to learn stuff like this, and therefore use it as a "tool" for their goals.

But in a much more open-ended world, how do you manage this? Personally, I see this as one of the big challenges in GMing; my own response tends to be to dial back the "worldbuilding" and to generate the content as needed - so knowledge skills, interrogation skill, divination abilities, and the like in my game tend to be devices for forcing GM narration rather than obtaining access to GM notes.

Hmm. This is harder to answer. I manage it... because I always have. One of the tools I use is a campaign project timeline which contains the start, end, and pivotal times of different plots/events. Those in the past are set. Those i the future are the current expectation barring player interference. As time passes, expectations turn into history and may become known to the group. As the players attempt to influence the world, the expectations may change. If a question pops for which I do not have a concrete answer, I typically turn to dice to resolve the issue. I make note of the result (and any new world-building decisions required to determine the probability distribution) and that becomes the game reality. The players may or may not realize I've used dice for the purpose, but they know the result is now concrete in the game world.

This bit is very interesting.

If I rephrase it in terms of play, rather than in in-fiction terms, then it looks like: GM narrates some stuff to players that includes fictional elements with hints of relevance to the players' current concerns with the fiction; the players (correctly, if I've got it right) infer that the GM has in mind some genuine connection beneath/behind those hints, but can't discern them (and don't make the moves, in terms of fictional positioning, that would trigger more narration).

I narrate the scene as the PCs experience it. Mostly, the stuff I include must need be somewhat relevant -- things the PCs will notice, things the players have indicated they are specifically looking for, or things the PC abilities suggest are incongruous. The players decide how to react to the situation described, the environment reacts to the PC actions and that back and forth continues until the situation is exhausted (and I frame a new starting situation), the players change the scene (by leaving or explicitly waiting until something new happens), or something untoward happens (like the default trajectory of the situation indicates something should happen).

The GM then establishes some additional fiction without telling the players ("Harry completes his investigation") and this triggers a change in the fiction accessible to the players for their purposes ("the arson that destroyed potential evidence"). This is the bit I'm especially intrigued by, because it relates back to your earlier remarks about GM force, and fairness; and also to issues of "scope" in the fiction. How did you decide to change the fictional situation in this way, with this (minor?) adverse consequence for the players?

The players heard of the fire and the PCs rushed to the barn. They considered it a destruction of potential evidence; I think they concluded some conspiracists destroyed the barn to protect themselves and their plot.

In this case, when the situation was being developed, Harry was placed at the scene investigating. I built an arc for Harry's investigation, pre-rolled his abilities, and worked out where and when his confrontation would take place. The PCs could have interfered at any point -- by helping Harry, by kicking him off the property until their investigation was complete, by exploring that site themselves when or before Harry does, by inviting Harry to dinner, by giving him a new story to pursue, or any other gambit the players decided to pursue.

The players prioritized their investigation in a way that placed the barn further in the future than Harry's event. They chose to avoid Harry and minimize their interactions with him (they were trying to be discreet and didn't want to draw the attention of a reporter) so his trajectory continued unchanged. Their choice had consequence. In this case, it was a consequence that was unexpected with limited foreshadowing, but not all things that can happen are well known to the people they happen to beforehand.

 

[Sunseeker]

My wife tells me that art is meaning-making.

I see worldbuilding as an art.

So I guess in that context, world-building is giving meaning to your adventure.

 

[Manbearcat]

The thread title really says it all. But here's some context to explain why I'm asking that question.

In classic D&D, the dungeon was a type of puzzle. The players had to map it, by declaring moves (literally) for their PCs. The players, using their PCs as vehicles, had to learn what was in there: this was about inventory - having enough torches, 10' poles, etc - and about game moves too - searching for secret doors, checking ceilings and floors, and so on. And finally, the players had to try and loot it while either avoiding or defeating the monsters guarding the treasures and wandering around the place - this is what the combat mechanics were for.

The game is something of a cross between a wargame and a complex refereed maze. And *worldbuilding* is all about making the maze. I get that.

That is where I'm going to start but I'm going to say a few more things. Here are three types of "worldbuilding" (in quotations here because two of them will be cases of pre-built worlds):

Moldvay Basic

The creation of a dungeon (coming up with a setting, a theme, and then the map, the puzzles and stocking the whole with everything from treasures to denizens to fauna/furniture) is tightly integrated with the rules. You've got the movement rules that make specific assumptions about setting premise (it will be dank, dark, and require constant effort to orient and search) which interface with the Exploration phase which interfaces with the map and key (the layout and how its stocked) which interfaces with Wandering Monsters/light sources and other time sensitive resources, which interfaces with Reaction.

The whole of the game's mechanics is tightly (beautifully) integrated with the worldbuilding. Crane's Torchbearer is inspired by it (therefore shares much of the same procedurally and premise/theme-wise along with its Burning Wheel influence)

Blades in the Dark

This is veeeeeeeeeeeery mechanically weighty system and built world (though agile and extraordinarily user friendly at the same time). You've got a pre-built setting that hooks amazingly deeply into the game's premise (a gang of ruthless scoundrels at the bottom of the power ladder in a city akin to a post-apoc + supernaturally-charged England at the beginning of the 20th century, scratching and clawing against all odds to climb it) both mechanically and in terms of situation framing (conflict-charged off the charts...a powderkeg with a lit fuse). All of the game's (very many) mechanics for advancement (for both singular PCs and the Gang as an organism) and setbacks are amazingly integrated with each other, with the game's procedure setup (Free Play to develop the intel/plan for the next Score > Score > Downtime/Fallout) and amazingly integrated with the built world (our "worldbuilding" here if only any of us had the time or ability to develop such a setting and system machinery so wedded).

D&D 4e and Dogs in the Vineyard

You have a base setting/cosmology with a conflict-charged premise. 4e has Points of Light or good/civilization on the brink + the Dawn War and all of its fallout. For Dogs you have a supernaturally charged Wild West that never ways where God's Watchdogs mete out justice and take care of the Faith (therefore the faithful) against the malignance of sin and soul-corrupting influence. These hook directly into the conflicts inherent to each game's premise and individual PC build flags. For 4e you have Background/Race/Class/Paragon Path/Epic Destiny/Quests for 4e. For Dogs you have the general Background system which includes Traits ("I used to break horses with my pa" or "I can't see a damn thing without these spectacles on") and Relationships ("My older brother is my hero" or "I see foul sorcery, I kill the man wieldin' it") and the player-authored kicker for an Initiation conflict that will further shape the character. GM-side you've got the baked-in premise of a conflict-charged setting in both and the procedures for creating and mechanically resolving conflict-charged scenes and evolving the fiction in 4e the Town creation procedures (more abstract, but akin to Moldvay and Torchbearer dungeon creation), the conflict resolution mechanics, and the tight GMing instruction of Vincent Baker (say yes or roll the dice and escalate, escalate, escalate, etc) in Dogs.

Neverwinter and Dark Sun are pre-built settings for 4e that do a great job of doing the work that Duskvol does for Blades in the Dark and showing how all of this stuff should work in concert.

---

Where worldbuilding can (not does, but certainly is quite vulnerable to it) become degenerate is when (a) it isn't integrated in any functional/coherent way with the game system's machinery/procedures, or (b) there isn't a baked-in, clear, conflict-charged premise that is hooked directly into and hooks PC build flags, or (c) it is a "precious" thing for the GM who, because it is, refuses to "kill their darling" (or allow it to be killed - eg manifestly altered in a fundamental way) because their primary enjoyment is showing off the output of their blood/sweat/tears/talent. (C) also happens with metaplot.

Note that (c) is irrelevant when you have players who are actually looking for a passive, setting/metaplot-tourism experience (of which there are a great many). In that case, it is not only not degenerate...its a necessity. Problems arise when the players aren't looking for a passive, 3-course meal of setting/metaplot tourism but the GM's compromised because of their investment in their built world/metaplot (in themselves and their vision really).

 

[pemerton]

My wife tells me that art is meaning-making.

I see worldbuilding as an art.

So I guess in that context, world-building is giving meaning to your adventure.

So are the players the audience for the GM's worldbuilding?

 

[Caliban]

So are the players the audience for the GM's worldbuilding?

I'm curious - what is your agenda here? The biased way you are phrasing your questions sounds like you are trying to build a case for something.

i.e. The term "audience" in this context denotes passivity, rather than players taking an active part in the game.

Why do you make this assumption about the players? It's certainly not implied by any of the answers you have received.

 

[innerdude]

Here's my take, @pemerton ---

Interestingly, I think worldbuilding is actually ONLY relevant in the context of playing a character, in the sense that you care about the character's motivations, drives, the history that shaped that character to be the way he or she is now. It's only when you come out of the dungeon and start looking around that it even matters---if you're the type of player that actually wants to place his or her character into some kind of setting context.

If you don't care about any of those things, I don't know that worldbuilding is truly all that relevant. And classic "Gygaxian" D&D seems to agree with this. As long as your character/player is head down, delving deep into the dungeon, none of that fiction-y, character backstory context matters much. It's purely about meeting the challenge in front of you. My secondary group has been playing D&D 5 using Curse of Strahd straight by the book. It's strictly beer and pretzels, puzzles and combat. And the last time I played with that group, it was possibly the worst D&D game I've played in my life. No context. No life. No real explanation for anything. "This is the stuff that's here, you're the player, go pull those levers because I'm the GM and I put them there."

I've just started playing Assassin's Creed 2 again, since I never managed to finish it the first time around. I think about how much time and energy the developers put into creating the fictional cities that exist in Ezio's world. How much of the fun of Assassin's Creed 2 is tied to the emotional stakes set in the worldbuilding around Ezio's family, the politics of the time, and the "NPCs"? Take away the back story and setting, and it's not much more than a game about climbing buildings and killing people and taking their stuff . . . gee, that sounds familiar . . . .

The real question is, how much backstory is necessary to create high enough emotional stakes to make gameplay interesting? Some people only want the minimum amount possible and no more. Some want considerably more than that.

The best RPG groups I've ever played in were in settings where the players had an immediate, familiar connection to the world.

Character only matters when there's a context for the character to matter in. Worldbuilding is about creating that context.

 

[Sadras]

But this clearly isn't true - you can have a game with any or all of those things without the GM writing up some fiction in advance.

Whether you do it in advance or at the table surely it doesn't make a difference about the importance of world building?

To be clear, this is what you claimed was not true.

So, given these difference between typical contemporary play and "classic" play, what is world building for?

It gives the game a backdrop, a history, a sense of continuity and consistency and place.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm curious - what is your agenda here? The biased way you are phrasing your questions sounds like you are trying to build a case for something.

i.e. The term "audience" in this context denotes passivity, rather than players taking an active part in the game.

Why do you make this assumption about the players? It's certainly not implied by any of the answers you have received.

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] does the same thing here, a few posts later:

Where worldbuilding can (not does, but certainly is quite vulnerable to it) become degenerate is when (a) it isn't integrated in any functional/coherent way with the game system's machinery/procedures, or (b) there isn't a baked-in, clear, conflict-charged premise that is hooked directly into and hooks PC build flags, or (c) it is a "precious" thing for the GM who, because it is, refuses to "kill their darling" (or allow it to be killed - eg manifestly altered in a fundamental way) because their primary enjoyment is showing off the output of their blood/sweat/tears/talent. (C) also happens with metaplot.

Note that (c) is irrelevant when you have players who are actually looking for a passive, setting/metaplot-tourism experience (of which there are a great many). In that case, it is not only not degenerate...its a necessity. Problems arise when the players aren't looking for a passive, 3-course meal of setting/metaplot tourism but the GM's compromised because of their investment in their built world/metaplot (in themselves and their vision really).

Lots here in these two short paragraphs.

Worldbuilding does not become degenerate (though I'll ask what you mean by 'degenerate' while I'm here) under either of your clauses a) or b) above. In fact, it can be (and maybe should be) somewhat neutrally done as far in isolation of these things as possible...unless, of course, you want the entirety of the game world to revolve around the PCs and what they think or do; a rather ludicrous proposition if one wants to maintain any kind of realism and-or believability.

Your clause c) is valid to this extent: once the puck drops the DM has to be aware that her game world and elements within it are at risk from what the PCs might do to them through their actions.

As for your second paragraph...where to begin?

Part of the joy of the game for me as a player during the early-mid parts of a campaign is exploring a new game world to find what's in it. I don't want to be building it because a) as a player I expect that to have already been done by the DM, and b) because it's not my place as a player to be building the DM's world. I also somewhat expect the DM will have some stories and-or plots and-or serious twists in mind to run in this world of hers; I'll go along with these until-unless something else in the game world or story catches my/the table's interest, at which point we'll go there instead and the DM will have to react.

What I will be doing along the way is two things: a) probably killing off a series of poor unfortunate PCs that get stuck with having me as their player, and b) giving the most entertaining and (I hope) interesting personalities and characterizations I can to the few of my PCs that survive. Because that's part of my job as a player: to create characters that can use the stage (i.e. game world/setting) I've been given...and while I'm at it, chew its scenery to the bone.

You somewhat derisively call this "passive setting/metaplot tourism"; to which I should probably take some slight offense as to me it's simply how the game is played, end of story. The DM makes the world and entertains us with it, we the players make the characters and entertain the DM with those.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

The biased way you are phrasing your questions sounds like you are trying to build a case for something.

Bias?

[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] described world building as art. Presumably, it is the GM's art and the GM's meaning given to the adventure. Art (typically) has an audience. I'm asking if the players are that audience? If the answer is no - eg the audience for worldbuilding is the GM - then how does worldbuiling relate to RPGing at all?

[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] also used an adjective - your - which is ambiguous between singular and plural. Whose adventure does worldbuilding give meaning to? I am imagining that the answer is the GM's adventure. If I'm wrong, shidaku can correct me.