Worldbuilding - One of the joys of GM/DMing?

[Snoweel]

I stand corrected.

Clearly, Wyrmshadows' discipplayers learnt long ago not to disagree with him.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Getting back on topic...

I'm very happy for the WorldBuilders - I've played in some games that had a rich world, full of interesting detail but that still managed to be focussed on the players.

However, I also think it's right for the DMG to focus on PoL - the sheer scale of 'building a world' is exactly the sort of thing that puts people off DMing, and without DM's the game dies. 4e has refired my imagination to DM (and it's working so far!), but I'm glad that the official advice is simple to start with.

 

[el-remmen]

How about this?

How about we get back to the discussion of world-building, and drop the side discussion regarding ignoring posters, or speculating about the OP's intentions, or flexing the passive-aggressive muscle, etc. . . etc. . .

Consider this an official warning. . .

thx

 

[Raven Crowking]

For me, being unable to visualize the world means that I can't run off the cuff as easily, and hence would be tempted to railroad. Being able to visualize the world means that I can invent consistent details without it being obvious that the invention isn't preplanned.

As a player, being able to visuailze the world is crucial for me. I like to make plans that step outside the narrow tracks of what the current goal is. I want to be able to see a bigger picture. If it becomes clear that there is no bigger picture, my interest wanes rapidly.

RC

 

[Mallus]

I have a confession to make; I'm an inveterate worldbuilder. Creating, detailing, and now partially destroying my beloved collaborative homebrew of CITY has brought me a ridiculous amount of enjoyment over the past five (or is it six?) years. Now with advent of the new edition, we're hard at play again designing a new setting for our 4e campaign in the fall. The slightly-rotted-to-the-point-they're-alcoholic fruits of both labors are posted here.

I don't see a move away from DM's as world-builders. Like the poor, they will always be with us. Perhaps there's a move away from a certain kind of worldbuilding, or as is more likely, it's just a reaction to some vocal posters here trying to claim a particular kind of worldbuilding as definitive.

My approach is to build worlds to tell stories in, they only need to make as much rational sense as their source literature and films (heh). Their tides are driven mainly by plot-necessity. Their only currency is contrivance. What realism or sense of simulation they have gets slathered on, butter-like, over the top... often with a few slices of cheese...

 

[Plane Sailing]

Snoweel has been banned from the thread for aggressive rudeness across several posts.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As a player, being able to visuailze the world is crucial for me. I like to make plans that step outside the narrow tracks of what the current goal is. I want to be able to see a bigger picture. If it becomes clear that there is no bigger picture, my interest wanes rapidly.

RC

Absolutely. I can play in a one shot with no world detail whatsoever but campaign play is a different matter. Its hard to invest in a character that isn't connected to a world for long term play. Its possible but the feel of the campaign is different. Lack of a credible world is one cause of metagame thinking in my opinion. Without a setting to focus on, players can become fixated on game mechanics, for example. How much detail it takes to provide that focus varies from group to group.

 

[Matt Black]

For me, being unable to visualize the world means that I can't run off the cuff as easily, and hence would be tempted to railroad. Being able to visualize the world means that I can invent consistent details without it being obvious that the invention isn't preplanned.

RC

This is a great point. When I have a reasonably detailed world (or kingdom, or city) at my fingertips, I'm much less likely to coerce my players along a set adventure path. If they choose to stray then I have the tools I need to adapt quickly.

World-building actually reduces railroading. It enhances the freedom of players rather than straightjacketing them.

 

[SuperGnome]

20 years ago (and for some time after that) I was heavily into world building. I then ended up being a player more than a DM, so I never really put much effort into it after that. For the last 6 years or so I've been DMing almost exclusively, but no longer have time to invest in it. I do enjoy it and miss it, but it is a lot of work.

Like a lot of others, I now take published settings and change them to fit my ideas. It works well for me as there is still a larger context to the locations, but I can put all of my energies into the small bit the players will experience.

Another thing I get out of it is the fun of exploring those areas when I'm doing recon for adventure setup. I like running into new information as well, and it's hard to be surprised by things you've created yourself.

**

I'd like to stick in a note that retroactively going back and changing settings (the Forgotten Realms for D&D comes to mind) annoys me when it's anything more than minor. I like to use the fiction as source material as well, and things start getting jacked up when too many things undergo major change.

 

[Greg K]

For me, being unable to visualize the world means that I can't run off the cuff as easily, and hence would be tempted to railroad. Being able to visualize the world means that I can invent consistent details without it being obvious that the invention isn't preplanned.

RC

I completely agree with you RC (and, despite my previous post being from the perspective as a player, I normally DM)