Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 7326617" data-attributes="member: 85870">So, I think there's several trains of thought scattered throughout all the responses that answer @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a>'s original question, "What is worldbuilding for?"<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">To add immersive flavor -- to spur players' imaginations a little more deeply into the shared fiction. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">To provide story "hooks," whether done as pure "sandbox" or based on clues from characters' builds/background. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">To create a fictional space where character motivations have real stakes -- i.e., the group social contract agrees that they want something more than just being "heads-down in the dungeon" all the time. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">To give the GM the opportunity to plan certain challenges ahead of time to maximize the challenge, tension, and impact. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">To allow the GM a creative opportunity that is different from being a player within the campaign. </li> </ul>There could be more, but these seem to be a condensed summary of the primary points.I think your question, @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a>, really boils down to----"Does pre-rendered worldbuilding actually serve any of these interests and the overall fun/enjoyment of the group, or are there more effective methods for doing the same thing?"I've got to be honest, I have a really hard time with a pure "no myth" approach to pen-and-paper RPGs. I wholeheartedly embrace the Dungeon World ethos of "create fronts, not plots." I wholeheartedly believe in the concept of scene framing and fictional positioning, and "play to see what happens." In the past eight years of GM-ing, I've never once pre-determined an encounter outcome. I've tried very much to use "say yes or roll the dice" as a primary component of my GM-ing style. And I still can't completely get behind the idea that worldbuilding isn't a necessary component of a "good" RPG campaign, because I've played in games where there was none, and they absolutely SUCKED SUCKED SUCKED----they were the suckiest campaigns that ever sucked.I've also played campaigns where the GM simply couldn't let go of his pre-built storyline, and when players "went off the rails," he basically lost interest in GM-ing. We'd get 6-8 sessions in, and suddenly he'd be saying, "Eh, I'm bored with this, let's start something new." For a GM who is unwilling to embrace scene framing / "say yes or roll the dice" principles, this is actually probably the "best case scenario," as at least he or she never forces the players to follow the plot rails willy nilly.The worst case scenario is boring "plot tourism" campaigns. This was how I felt around 40% of the way through the last Savage Worlds Shaintar campaign in which I was a player. At that point I was no longer interested in what the GM was dispensing, but had no choice to get off the rails. Eventually I sort of just accepted it and still managed to have some fun, but its conclusion was far less satisfying than I wanted it to be or it could have been.But having now actually managed to GM two highly successful fantasy campaigns, one in Pathfinder and one in Savage Worlds, using the general principles I've outlined, I'm totally comfortable with the idea that you can find a middle ground between doing worldbuilding while still allowing player freedom, improvisation, and not being married to any particular narrative outcome.</blockquote>

Verification