Why the World Exists

[GnomeWorks]

There's no sin in admitting the setting has a purpose.

My setting existed for seven years before a single game was played in it.

It has no purpose other than to exist in my head. Is it useful for other things? Yes. But in the end, its purpose is to exist.

Cad is right about this because, despite a DM's best intentions, that 'as much as possible' ain't much. It's a difficult thing to do. Many, many, successful, well-regarded authors can't do what you're suggesting.

How do you know if they can or cannot? And how is this relevant?

So you think it's not possible... fine. I think it is.

In an ideal world, it rains candy. This is why examples drawn from ideal worlds lack utility.

I hope you don't ever have conversations about how you would like the world to be.

I said a setting's primary purpose is to house a D&D campaign ie, to facilitate the playing of a game.

Oh, please. You didn't say anything vaguely resembling "primary."

Unless the orcs are genuinely necessary (in the philosophical sense of the term[that's a great band name, "Necessary Orcs"]) to the logic and realism of your setting, then you still picked arbitrarily amongst the many reasonable possibilities that would all have matched the logic and consistency of the setting.

Having necessary orcs would require a level of detail that, while ideal, is probably rather unrealistic.

Sufficient orcs, on the other hand... would most likely be sufficient.

Not only that, but why is it necessary that the encounter is selected by hand? Why is it inconceivable to think of a GM who constructs "random" encounter tables for a dungeon by consulting the region around where the dungeon is located, thereby determining (through math, not through arbitrary decision-making) what is reasonable to encounter in the dungeon?

The conditions for the process of filling a dungeon may have been arbitrary (ie, as part of world design, the GM determines that dungeons include creatures from X radius around its various entrances, which may or may not be a reasonable number). The point isn't that it's necessarily realistic, it's that it is internally consistent and not subject to the GM's whim once the decision is made. PCs can make decisions based off of this knowledge, and expect it to remain true.

You can't say, "its neutral that it takes them N rounds to get there because they are X meters from the room" because you are the one who put them X meters from the room, knowing full well that they would then take N rounds to arrive.

...unless the dungeon is the product of relatively random/procedural generation, at which point - no, I didn't put those orcs there, the world did.

There are no such thing as orcs. They have no objective distance away, nor any other objective characteristics.

Why is it so absurd to you to treat them as if they were objective?

 

[Mallus]

My setting existed for seven years before a single game was played in it.

So the setting began as fiction. Or a form of masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Okay...

It has no purpose other than to exist in my head.

But as soon as you began running an RPG in it, that changed. The setting needed to conform, in some fashion, to the game system used, it needed to conform to the needs of the specific campaign you ran, it needed to become a gaming space, etc.

You could almost say at that point you had two related settings; the purely fictional one and the one you used as a game environment. Note that this is usually what happens in licensed gaming fiction (the FR of the rule books is different from the FR of the novels).

I hope you don't ever have conversations about how you would like the world to be.

But I think you'd find I'm a pretty good guy to discuss worldbuilding with. Even people who disagree w/me on other gaming-related topics admit I'm good at it.

Oh, please. You didn't say anything vaguely resembling "primary."

Go back and read my posts again. My overall point has been pretty clear (I think...).

 

[The Shaman]

What I, as the DM want, is "fun". I want fun. I have fun when my players are having fun.

Mustrum_Ridcully, have you met Melan?

I like random tables in a way - especially because they provide me with ideas for stuff that can happen/be found etc. But in another way - they don't explain why stuff happens.

That's the referee's role.

If I roll my 5 % chance that the party will encounter the Dragon in the forest, the table doesn't tell me _why_ he does that exactly at this moment. And if I figure that the PCs won't survive any combat encounter against him, why shouldn't I make up a story that makes the combat option less likely - and dependent on the PCs actions?

You can. Or you can roll a random reaction and derive the motivation from that.

Of course, I also could make up a random table giving the Dragons motivation. But at some point; I think I as the DM should take _direct_ control of the game.At some point the referee will take control of the encounter. The point at which that happens varies from referee to referee.

I like to randomly generate NPCs, including their personalities and quirks, because it keeps things fresh and I often end up with character I never would've considered creating with the influence of the dice. I can get a lot of mileage out of random results before I finally have to put my hands on the wheel.

Everything relying on chance just don't work.

Not everything, but perhaps more than some referees realize.

Players usually don't roll the dice to determine whether they help the mayor or rather explore the dungeon of carnage. Why should I, as the DM, be differently?

Because the referee is supposed to be impartial with respect to outcomes? Because the referee's role at the table is different than that of the players?

Just spitballing here.

The unique and intersting thing about a sandbox to me is that the PCs do have a lot of of decisions to make what goals they choose for themselves and which hooks they follow - and that these decisions impact the game world. The hooks they don't follow don't get forgotten, they grow. If they didn't deal with the Goblin attacks at 1st level, the Goblins might grow bold and attack a village, gaining new (more powerful) allies - allies that the 5th level PCs could choose to engage. A wizard hiding himself in his tower might, at 1st level, ask the PCs for some aid in his research, at 10th level, he might have invented a powerful necromantic ritual that gives him power over the dead, and at 20th level, he might be an influential member of an undead army trying to conquer the world.

That's one of the reasons it's my favorite way to run a game, too.

 

[The Shaman]

If he's using a random table, he has to interpret the results in a way that leads to an interesting game. If he rolls for his "Dragon too tough for this level" on the forest wandering monster table, I fully expect him o interpret this result in a way that allows the players to react and interact with the encounter without leading to only one possible outcome.

Just to be clear, while I've been mucking around at the extreme end of the spectrum with a deeply contrived example, I agree with this insofar as the encounter should offer the players and their characters the opportunity to demonstrate their skill and creativity.

 

[The Shaman]

As he has been speaking, you've noticed a bluish tinge growing on his face. You chalk it up to the stress, until he gasps and clutches his chest. "The... fish...!" he croaks out, and then falls face first into his plate, dead.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoBTsMJ4jNk]Was it salmon mousse?[/ame]

Oh, and that's what saving throws are for.

 

[GnomeWorks]

So the setting began as fiction. Or a form of masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Okay...

Wow, yeah, thanks for being condescending.

But as soon as you began running an RPG in it, that changed. The setting needed to conform, in some fashion, to the game system used, it needed to conform to the needs of the specific campaign you ran, it needed to become a gaming space, etc.

Or, you know, I modified the hell out of the game system to suit the world.

You could almost say at that point you had two related settings; the purely fictional one and the one you used as a game environment. Note that this is usually what happens in licensed gaming fiction (the FR of the rule books is different from the FR of the novels).

No, I refuse to do this.

But I think you'd find I'm a pretty good guy to discuss worldbuilding with. Even people who disagree w/me on other gaming-related topics admit I'm good at it.

I don't see how this is at all relevant, but sure, whatever you say.

Go back and read my posts again. My overall point has been pretty clear (I think...).

That you and a few others around here seem to think that I'm crazy and doing it wrong and am basically an idiot for not seeing it your way, and seem to think that it's perfectly acceptable to condescend to those who do things differently than you?

 

[Raven Crowking]

So the setting began as fiction. Or a form of masturbation. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Okay...

(1) The setting isn't fiction until action takes place in it. Until that point, there is no "story" and hence no fiction. The setting is no more (or less) fictitious when the game occurs than when the game is in prep.

(2) Do you refer to your gaming as "a form of group masturbation"? If not, may I suggest that this sort of comment might not be appropriate?


RC

 

[Cadfan]

(1) The setting isn't fiction until action takes place in it. Until that point, there is no "story" and hence no fiction. The setting is no more (or less) fictitious when the game occurs than when the game is in prep.

Exactly! That's why its ok to change stuff that hasn't happened yet.

For the record, everyone responded to my earlier post by arguing the hypothetical. Like I predicted like ten pages ago. I'd be psychic except I converted to 4e and we don't have those yet.

 

[Mallus]

(1) The setting isn't fiction until action takes place in it.

I'm calling the writing of fictional setting details 'fiction'. It's shorthand.

Do you refer to your gaming as "a form of group masturbation"?

Heh... no. But I do sometimes refer to setting development as masturbation (because so much of it is done solely for my pleasure and in accordance w/my specific fetishes interests). It's a little self-deprecating humor...

I know it's a tad vulgar, but also apt. I'm an inveterate world-builder. I like creating details for their own sake, or rather, for mine, for the sheer joy of making sh stuff up. But I also know that once I agree to use said world in an RPG campaign, I need to bend/break/remake it to serve the needs of the game.

 

[Mallus]

Wow, yeah, thanks for being condescending.

I wasn't being condescending, I was being self-deprecating (I've spent a great deal of time noodling away on setting creation, too). But you didn't have a way of knowing that, so I apologize.

No, I refuse to do this.

I accept that, but I really struggle to see the benefit of it. Why hold to one version of a fictional construct when you can just as easily have many?

I don't see how this is at all relevant...

Relevant? I just like to mention the things I'm good at .

That you and a few others around here seem to think that I'm crazy and doing it wrong and am basically an idiot for not seeing it your way...

All I said to you was 'objectivity is harder than you make it out to be'.