Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7401990" data-attributes="member: 6785785">My view of it is that anything done to establish the game world that the characters inhabit is worldbuilding. So yes, for me it is an essential part of every single RPG. It cannot be avoided, and is certainly not bad.I don’t think that the world in worldbuilding means the planet the characters live on. It can encompass that, but such details may never come up. So if a game takes place entirely in a magical labyrinth of some kind, hidden below the surface, then that IS the world the characters inhabit. The game world can be as small as one room or as large as the multiverse. In traditional play, labeled “worldbuilding” in this thread, the world is likely largely established or decided by the GM ahead of time. In Story Now games (the ones I’m familiar with, anyway) the world is implied by the setting, and then the details are established by the GM and players together in the first session. No Myth is a take where no world details are considered canon until introduced in play. The GM and players build the world as they play.Now, what is actually needed in order to establish whatever world the characters are going to inhabit is what’s debatable. It will vary by the needs of the game and the scope of the world, but how much is actually needed? Totally a matter of preference.All that’s needed is what is required for the adventure at hand. So in that sense, I can see the criticism of establishing the lineage of the local ruler and the major exports out of the area and so on. Most likely, such details are superfluous. And if they did somehow cone up in play, the GM can establish it at that time.But at the same time, if the GM has decided all these details ahead of time, I don’t really see how it negatively impacts the players. They interact with the details that are relevant and ignore or never even become aware of the rest.In a more open sandbox approach, it likely helps for the GM to have a good deal of high level details sketched out so that whichever way play goes, he has something to lean on. Again, we don’t need a Silmarillion’s worth of details, but things like the surrounding areas, possible points of interest, potential dangers, and the like are a good idea to have in mind.I really don’t see how having these high level, likely relevant world details at the ready is a negative. Leaning on them seems no different to me than leaning on genre expectations or player introduced material, for the most part. This is one of the advantages of usibg a published game world; a lot of these details are already established. The work is already done...and yet the GM can still change things to suit the needs of his specific game.If the GM decides that his details are what really matters and he forces the game in a direction so that they continue to come up....I think this is a GM issue more than a worldbuilding one. So while I do think many GMs of traditional style games can probably ease off on detailing their world, and depending on their players and the expectations for the game, can likely start involving the players in the worldbuilding in order to connect their characters more firmly to the game world, I don’t think that worldbuilding is really a problem at all. Generally, it’s a good thing...a necessity for the game. You could even argue it is the very point of the game. But just like with anything good, it can be overdone or it can be limited to one person, which may impact the game negatively.I personally do a bit of everything. I lean on my players’ ideas, published material, genre, and also my own ideas. It seems to work for my players and me.</blockquote>

Verification