Worldbuilding - One of the joys of GM/DMing?

[EricNoah]

I'm not a person who understands real life.

That's me, too. That's why I could never run a sci fi or modern day RPG. Play one, sure, but run one? No way.

Sometimes this stuff stymies some of my fantasy RPG plot plans. For example -- many adventure plots revolve around people being captured by slavers. I have all sorts of logistical and economic questions about how a slaving operation would work, and without those answers I just don't feel like I could do a good job at running such an adventure -- unless I do a lot of hand-waving.

Sometimes my lack of knowledge leads to some interesting research however. I read a book on historical druids in order to prep for a Birthright campaign that was going to center on "old vs. new religion." That research really helped me learn about the druid's role in society, and that in turn helped me create many interesting roleplaying encounters.

 

[Snoweel]

I tend to agree that worldbuilding needs to be balanced with the needs of the game and the PCs. IME, I have noticed that an immersive setting is conducive to immersive RPing that that my players have always appreciated attention the attention to detail that can, at times, obsess me. I find that having a richly detailed setting helps the players know the fullest range of options available to them and the limitations of the settings such as which PrCs, classes, races, etc. are available.

See I used to feel the same. But really, what if one of your players wants to try something that he thinks would be fun but you don't allow it because you decided long ago that such an option isn't part of the "fullest range of options available" to your players?

Your obsession with developing your setting has caused you to arbitrarily remove a potentially fun option from your players. If he had his heart set on playing a certain race/class/whatever you'd have to either say No or rewrite a part of your setting to fit it in.

Are your players such devoted tourists that they'll put up with your arbitrary restrictions?

To be honest, I am more than happy to add different touches desired by the players so long as everything can be thematically tied together.

The theme being what? That it's part of your richly detailed life's work?

In fact, I found that my players take the game more "seriously" when things are nicely detailed. When we were younger, I noticed that their PCs tended to be more inclined to be killcrazy nutcases when they were playing in a DMs game where the setting was not belivable. My players take a lot of enjoyment in getting to know the setting and its characters (NPCs) and that knowledge motivates them on their adventures because one has more emotional attachment to that which is well known/defined.

I don't use a defined setting as a straightjacket. In fact, I find that as a DM, knowing the limits of a setting (either homemade or published) frees me to worry less about the details and get to the epic tales I am helping my players tell through the game.

Can you provide an example of how this is possible?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's me, too. That's why I could never run a sci fi or modern day RPG. Play one, sure, but run one? No way.

Sometimes this stuff stymies some of my fantasy RPG plot plans. For example -- many adventure plots revolve around people being captured by slavers. I have all sorts of logistical and economic questions about how a slaving operation would work, and without those answers I just don't feel like I could do a good job at running such an adventure -- unless I do a lot of hand-waving.

Sometimes my lack of knowledge leads to some interesting research however. I read a book on historical druids in order to prep for a Birthright campaign that was going to center on "old vs. new religion." That research really helped me learn about the druid's role in society, and that in turn helped me create many interesting roleplaying encounters.

One of the toughest things with modern settings (that is sometimes also shared with published settings of a certain "maturity" in source books and novels, like Forgotten Realms) - everybody knows the real world, and build their expectations on that. And your players might sometimes know more than you, and if you simply screwed up (instead of consciously diverging from known reality), you will feel bad about it, and it can even halt the game for a while until the misconceptions have been cleared.

 

[Cadfan]

It seems that recently there has been a "vibe" that seems to indicate that worldbuilding has fallen into disfavor. I know that there are other DMs/GMs who feel as I do in regards to the joys of worldbuilding and I want to hear your takes on the subject. Also, I am sure that there are those DMs/GMs who aren't worldbuilders and I'd like to hear from them too...though I will likely disagree with that point of view.



Wyrmshadows

I don't like worldbuilding.

When I am the DM, I would rather build only those parts of the world with which the PCs interact. I prefer those portions of the world to be consistent and coherent, and I even have a few DMing tricks that are basically world building tricks designed to avoid a lot of the major pitfalls into which worldbuilders fall while still accomplishing worldbuilding. But overall, my goal tends to be simplicity over complexity.

When I am the player, I HATE when the DM starts to indicate that he's a big worldbuilder. Because invariably that means that there's this scintillating world that exists entirely in his mind, which he is going to clumsily attempt to convey to us while we try to stab goblins. And we'll be quizzed on it, of course- things will happen that will require us to remember (or for really bad DMs, intuit) details of his campaign world in order to progress the story. Which we won't, because they weren't important to us because they weren't related to stabbing goblins or why we were stabbing goblins or anything about goblins or stabbing at all.

Worst case scenario, he gives us a multi page handout, and expects us to read and memorize it. It details all kinds of cultures and peoples and religions, perhaps two of which will ever come up in game. Some of us will try to humor him, and create characters that fit into one of his cultures. He will tell us that we are doing it wrong.

Worser case scenario, the DM has decided that anything and everything he doesn't personally find "cool" is "not part of [his] campaign world." This provides him with a pseudo-objective (but really subjective) reason that you aren't allowed to play a tiefling or whatever.

So I'm a huge fan of the points of light shortcut. Create as much of the campaign world as is immediately relevant. Allude to things beyond the realm of immediate relevance, and elaborate upon them when you get there. Allow players to play whatever they like on initial character creation, and just work it into the setting.

If your first 20 sessions are going to focus on the war between Humania and Hobgoblinica, write up those countries and don't try to tell me about the five drow demon gods that I won't encounter until I'm epic level, assuming the game runs that long.

 

[Psion]

That's me, too. That's why I could never run a sci fi or modern day RPG. Play one, sure, but run one? No way.

I'm doing it. Running a Spycraft game.

Honestly, it's one of the most challenging GMing experiences I've had, precisely because I have grown up "growing the world and seeing what comes out of it" to inform my adventure ideas. When I have a world that is already full grown, and doesn't have much room for extras, I'm sort of out of my element.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

See I used to feel the same. But really, what if one of your players wants to try something that he thinks would be fun but you don't allow it because you decided long ago that such an option isn't part of the "fullest range of options available" to your players?

Every setting has it options and limitations. Thats just the way things are. FR, Krynn, Athas, Greyhawk, etc. all of them have a set of assumptions and it is these assumptions that define a setting. A setting is defined as much by what you subtract as by what you add. On Krynn there are no orcs so therefore if you want a half orc maybe I can work with you to create a half-hobgoblin character or some other half monster to fit the bill. If your heart was set on a helf-orc then I can't help you.

I don't play kitchen sink settings because they are all the same and IMO uninteresting. There are always reasonable workarounds for someone's character vision. However, if I am willing to create a half-hobgoblin race for your character concept, then you have to meet me and get the half-orc out of your plans...compromise is a 2-way street.

Your obsession with developing your setting has caused you to arbitrarily remove a potentially fun option from your players. If he had his heart set on playing a certain race/class/whatever you'd have to either say No or rewrite a part of your setting to fit it in.

Every setting has its own banes and boons...or they would all be bland copies of one another. If I am DMing in settings similar to Arthurian Britian, Africa, Arabia, etc. then you can choose amongst a cornicopia of available options. When I play, I fully expect that there are noticable differences between the various settings and I respect my DM's right to allow or disallow that which he decides is appropriate. I do more DMing than playing...but I respect the DMs right to choose what is appropriate for his campaign.

I am not a DM who believes that just because WoTC (or whoever) creates a splatbook I am obligated to add it to my campaign/setting. If it fits, its allowed, if it doesn't...it isn't.

Are your players such devoted tourists that they'll put up with your arbitrary restrictions?

Devoted tourists? Arbitrary decisions? Well aren't we just jumping to conclusions?

My arbitrary decisions are my decisions that as a DM I have every right to make. I don't play favorites and I don't make descisions arbitrarily despite your assumptions. Is a DM running a game in the Midnight setting, a setting without gods...except for Izrador...the Lord of Evil, being arbirary for not allowing a cleric of Pelor or any clerics in the party? Is a Greyhawk DM being cruel for not allowing a PC to be a cleric of Mystra when Mystra is an FR goddess and the DM isn't doing a world mixing campaign?

My PCs aren't tourists, they are heroes in a setting that happens to contain much more than just them. My players feel as though their PCs are part of a broader world with history and flavor. They are the stars of the campaign which is a smaller subset of the entirety of the whole setting. Their heroics have real impact because it is my setting so I can have whole chains of cause and effect happening because I don't have to be beholden to a game company's authors to come up with canon.

The theme being what? That it's part of your richly detailed life's work?

I meant to say thematic elements such as those found in published settings like Athas, Midnight, Ravenloft, etc. Settings with peronality have thematic feels to them. Some of them are easier to spot than others, but they are there. Thematic elements are like the personality of the setting and set the atmosphere. Strong thematic elements are IME able to dictate the type of game to be had nearly wordlessly. IME only in those settings with weak thematic elements ie. vanilla RAW D&D in a "Known World" kind of thing, tend to create more DM player conflicts because of ambiguous expectations.

And Snoweel, there is no need to be a wise arse, I didn't say it was my life's work I said it was a personally fulfilling creative outlet. If you can't tone down the snarky manner in which you respond to my posts, feel free not to respond.

Can you provide an example of how this is possible?

If I am running a game in Conan's Hyboria there are already a set of strong assumptions (low magick, human PCs, lots of cruelty and violence, moral ambiguity, etc.). These assumptions free both the DM and the players to concentrate their energies on what does exist in the setting instead of having to wonder whether or not a Naruto or Drizz't rip off will fit...he wouldn't...question answered and now we are free to worry less about every other potential option that rolls down the track.

There is often freedom in knowing one's boundaries so long as those boundaries aren't destructive. Every setting, whether it is from gaming or literature has boundaries...its just the way things are.



Wyrmshadows

 

[The Cardinal]

Worldbuilding is my greatest joy as a GM - and one of the reasons why my GURPS4e has become my favorite system!

 

[Agamon]

Heh, I've taken homebrew for the PCs to the extreme. My game starts next week, and beyond sketching the city and prepping a couple events, I've done nothing. I have no idea what they will do in response to these events, there's literally dozens of different ways they could go and I'm not wasting time prepping anything that might not be necessary.

Of course, the game only plays once a month, so that helps...

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

That's me, too. That's why I could never run a sci fi or modern day RPG. Play one, sure, but run one? No way.

I don't see why that'd be a problem. Just take off the blinders of "realisticness-type" concepts and just do what you feel like (and tell your players you're going to do it).

There is often freedom in knowing one's boundaries so long as those boundaries aren't destructive. Every setting, whether it is from gaming or literature has boundaries...its just the way things are.

I agree having boundaries can help focus the game, but one then needs to understand what kind of adventures can go on in that world. The latter is one of my problems and one of the reasons I'm not too fond of boundaries: I have so little understanding of what to do on adventures that I need a setting that can accomidate many varied ideas just to have more than one.

 

[Uruush]

World-building is a lot of fun, and I've spent a lot of time doing it. You just need to know up from that there is the strong possibility that the 10-100 hours you spent on it may result in no more than an additional 5-10 minutes of fun at the table for any given player, and that it may actually provide less fun relative to simply letting the players have a hand in world-creation/building as you go.

What is fun for the DM is often fun for players too, so be careful not to hog all the fun.