# Forked from "An Epiphany" thread: Is World Building "Necessary"?



## Mercurius (Mar 26, 2009)

Forked from:  An Epiphany -- My new Fave thing about 4E 



Hussar said:


> Stormtalon - you mean... you are creating a campaign without spending hours and hours and hours on setting wankery first? And NO ONE here is yelling at you for it. Wow, times really have changed. I thought the setting nazis around here insisted that THOU SHALT WORLD BUILD, before creating any campaign.
> 
> Must wait for it.
> 
> But, kudos to you.  This is EXACTLY how a DM should be creating campaigns IMNSHO.




Hmm. First you use pejorative terms like "setting wankery" and "setting nazis" and decry such folks for saying "Thou Shalt"...then, in the last sentence, you turn around and effectively say "Thou Shalt create campaigns after My Own Image." Isn't that a bit contradictory, even hypocritical?

Look, I think there is something to what you are saying but would point out that there are many different ways to create a successful (that is, _enjoyable_) campaign experience. But it is way too trite to say that no world-building and backstory is required.

In many ways running a campaign is similar to writing a novel. In one sense you only need to know what the readers/players know; in another, there is the _potential_ for things to look flat if the players/readers get a glimpse that the old western town is actually a set piece (two-dimensional) and behind it is the bald-and-chubby old Wizard of Oz randomly generating reality via use of the Ultimate Toolbox (not a dig on this book...I just bought it and like it). I think we can safely say--at the least--that world building doesn't hurt and can only help with bringing dimensionality. 



Hussar said:


> Really? Every time I've stated pretty much exactly that, that you should focus on your campaign and not building your world, I've been told in no uncertain terms, on these forums, repeatedly, that I am absolutely wrong.
> 
> That without world building, your campaign will automatically be flat, nothing but meaningless dungeon crawls and completely lacking in any sort of depth or consistency.
> 
> THAT'S the bizarro internet I've been reading.




OK, what I hear is that you, perhaps with good reason, are pissed with the so-called "setting nazis." But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater; that is, let's not throw out the question of whether world-building is needed for a good campaign, or rather _to what degree_ it is needed, with the Thou Shalts and absolute statements of This Is How Gaming Should Be Done, which no one likes.

I would amend your above sentence to say:

"...without _adequate_ world building, your campaign has the _potential_ to be flat, with _relatively_ meaningless dungeon crawls and lacking _to some degree_ in depth or consistency."

Alright, it kind of made the statement meaningless, but you get the point (I hope)! So let's discuss these questions:

* To what degree is world-building needed to run a good/enjoyable campaign? How does world-building support depth and internal consistency? Can these qualities be achieved without a lot of world-building? What qualities does a campaign more likely have with or without a lot of world-building? What are the potential drawbacks to a lot of world-building and can it be excessive? Is it possible to "build as you go"? Etc. 
* 
There is a lot of room for fruitful discussion here, _if _we throw the "bathwater" out of Thou Shalts and pejorative accusations, whatever our viewpoint on the matter.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Mar 26, 2009)

I've done it both ways, detailing a world before-hand, and doing it on the fly. 

Either way works for me, but I guess it depends on what your overall goal is. I would think that if you had some pretty grand storylines in mind, with definate "adventure path" style games, you'd probably want to do a little world building before hand, just to have some basics ready for later on. 

If you just running a sandbox style game, its probably easier not to detail very much at all, and just go with the flow. 

I prefer to world build, but games I've run without much world building have still given me plenty of inspiration, and its exciting sometimes to see what the players come up with to add to the setting for themselves. It also gives you lots of freedom without worrying about how to squeeze stuff in that you didn't plan on.


----------



## jdrakeh (Mar 26, 2009)

I think it all comes down to what game you're playing and what you (as an individual) want out of it, really.  

Look at the original Greyhawk folio — it's arguably one of the most popular D&D settings ever but it's relatively light on "world building" (it weighs in at just 33 pages of written content and some maps). For many D&D players, this level of bare bones detail is sufficient. 

Now look at the AD&D 2e incarnation of Forgotten Realms — it was argubaly _the_ most popular D&D setting ever and was supported by multiple novel lines, video games, hundreds of sourcebooks, dozens of magazine articles, etc. Some D&D players won't settle for anything less.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 26, 2009)

I was going to fork this thread as well.

Instead I'm going to step on yours. 

I've been thinking of world/campaign/game building recently. I've decided to take even one step further back, to the metagame level. I've started with the principles of my next game - what are my goals?

Here's where I am so far:

```
Principles of the game:

1.	“Mythological” world rules, not scientific
2.	Share world building
3.	World changing PCs
4.	Embrace elements of 4e – 
     a.	World Axis cosmology
     b.	Tiers of play
     c.	Rituals & alchemy
     d.	Skill challenges
     e.	Use all core
5.	Play what you want


Principles to game elements
1.	Mythological rules
     a.	The world is flat
     b.	Men become gods
     c.	Gods can be slain
     d.	You can sail off the edge of the world to reach the stars
     e.	If you climb deep into the volcano, you reach the Sea of Fire… which is also the sun
     f.	It’s hard to tell where the forest ends and the Feywild begins
     g.	The past, the present and the future are written in the stars… learn to read them
2.	Share world building
     a.	The Exiles construct allows a player to make a full culture, as extensive or limited as desired, and slot it into the world
     b.	The Empire can have any secret or open societies, and they can be introduced at any time
     c.	The Natives haven’t been fully explored, so any native culture can come from over the horizon
     d.	The planes are permeable – outsiders anyone?
     e.	Anything can come from the sea
3.	World changing PCs
    a.	Heroic tier
         i.	Political/civilization level changes
         ii.	Save/expand/betray your Exile community
         iii.	Thwart/aid the Empire
         iv.	Push back the darkness
     b.	Paragon tier
         i.	Extraplanar
         ii.	Rewrite the world powers
         iii.	Strengthen/weaken the gods?
     c.	Epic tier
         i.	Remake the world
         ii.	Remake the cosmology
              1.	Gods?
              2.	Primordials?
              3.	Far Realms?
              4.	Tharzidun?
     d.	Aftermath?
          i.	Next campaign set amid the PC’s changes?
```

As you can see I haven't finished...

But my goal is to make sure that anything I put in the game is consistent with the principles I start with. So any house rules, or setting elements, or treasures found, etc, are there because I can trace back to a principle I want to expand on.

PS


----------



## Hussar (Mar 26, 2009)

Aww, but, if I can't get up on my soapbox, I must be doing something wrong.  

Ok, fair enough, I'm overstating my case.  It was a bit of a knee jerk comment based on Storm Talon's original thread about how he was building a campaign from the ground up, not based on any particular setting, but, instead, basing it almost entirely on plot.

This is a very different approach than what has traditionally been advocated by a great number of people in the hobby.  Heck, even the various Dungeon Master Guides include fairly lengthy sections on world building.  The typical advice is either top down or bottom up, but, in the end it's generally, "build the setting first, then figure out what kind of adventures go on in that setting."

I really do disagree with that approach.  I think a far better approach, and much better advice to new DM's out there, is "start with a story.  Think about what events would be important to that story.  Then, start building from there."  Even if the story is just, "Go out and see what's over that next hill", it's better to start from the story angle than to design the other side of the hill and then work backwards.

Fair enough for taking me to task on my rhetoric.  I'll agree with that.  Bit too strongly worded is right.  But, in the end, I do think my basic point is solid.  Many gamers, and also those dispensing gaming advice, have placed a very strong emphasis on setting over plot.  I mean, those old DungeonCraft articles from Dungeon are great.  They really are a fantastic series on how to build a setting.  However, IMO, they are not a great way to build a campaign


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 26, 2009)

I'm basically with Hussar.  Nine times out of ten, if a DM is using terms like "world building," what he really means is "I've put in all kinds of details that I want you to know, that I may or may not actually tell you, that you'll probably forget anyways, and that won't be relevant to anything in the actual game, until the moment I pull a gotcha and get angry that you didn't remember some detail about the gnomish god of such and such that I made absolutely crucial to the plotline of a particular session."

I'm all for DM preparation and the creation of a coherent gameworld, I think these things are important only to the extent that they make the game better.  That usually means that details are held down to a manageable amount that can be clearly communicated to the players and which have actual, repeated relevance during sessions.  There are some tricks to accomplishing that, by the way- get the gameplay details worked into character backstories.  With luck, the players will do some of the work of communicating and spreading the information, and making it relevant in gameplay, for you.

The other trick is to just start chopping out material with an axe.  My present campaign has only two kingdoms.  The PCs are from both.  There was a war about 50 years ago between the two kingdoms, and the younger generation is at peace about it, but the older one is not.  There are still some old nationalists in both kingdoms who resent the other side, and the losing side still has some colonies that do not acknowledge the treaty that was signed.

That's about all the worldbuilding I did.  Fortunately, it all tends to be relevant in game, the players can remember it, and they can put their knowledge to use.  I consider this a success in a way that I would not consider extra detail my players will ignore.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 26, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Nine times out of ten, if a DM is using terms like "world building," what he really means is "I've put in all kinds of details that I want you to know, that I may or may not actually tell you, that you'll probably forget anyways, and that won't be relevant to anything in the actual game, until the moment I pull a gotcha and get angry that you didn't remember some detail about the gnomish god of such and such that I made absolutely crucial to the plotline of a particular session."




That's easily solved by a single knowledge religion check. "Your character knows that the gnome god has a weakness for the halfing goddess of luck". GMs who pull a "gotcha" are not tied to world building, they are a problem (for those who don't like that playstyle) of their own.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 26, 2009)

Fenes said:


> That's easily solved by a single knowledge religion check. "Your character knows that the gnome god has a weakness for the halfing goddess of luck". GMs who pull a "gotcha" are not tied to world building, they are a problem (for those who don't like that playstyle) of their own.




Yes and no.  

Sure, you can make the roll, but, unless you had some reason to do so in the first place, you aren't likely going to ask.  And, this presumes, of course, that the person who wants to know, also has access to the relevant skills.  And, not only has the relevant skills, but also manages to make a successful check.

I'm a HUGE believer in building setting.  I am a strong non-believer in world building.  I think that world building tends to be an DM only exercise that is fine in its place, but should not be the first or even second or third consideration when building a campaign.  I put world building in the same category as model train building and painting minis - it's pretty, it's impressive, but, at the end of the day, it's a pretty solo activity.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 26, 2009)

It's fine to do it both ways.  However, for a fantasy rpg, it is the setting (including the elements) and how it is represented mechanically that will interest me in participating.  Therefore, don't expect me to play if the dm has not thought about the setting, its elements (deities, cultures, races, nations, magic, important NPCs and organizations) and the mechanics used to represent them (classes, variant rules/house rules, etc.).  

Oh, and don't expect me to play in a kitchen sink/anything goes game (Personally, I am not a fan).

What I think is helpful,  beyond a genre (e.g, arabian adventures, asian adventures, post apocalyptic, gothic horror, tolkienesque) , are things that create the sense of a coherent setting and inform players how things will differ from RAW.

1.  Races
This tells the player the available choices for PCs found in the world.

2. Culture
For the player, the culture informs them of what the race ( or a specific group of the race) is like in the setting including social organization (e.g, band, tribal, monarchy) , subsistance (e.g, hunter/gather, pastoral, farming), religious practices, views on magic, social values, views on ownership of personal property,  dress, body art/ornamentation, etc. . It gives them a starting place to  base their character's  backgrounds and personality including how they as an individual might differ from the norm (nothing like being an outcast as a reason to adventure).  

For the DM, the culture can  help define which classes are found among a given race i(e.g.,  limiting clerics, druids, and shaman's to specific cultures) or how to alter powers or skills for a given class.  It also indicates the type of enviroments that will be needed when determing the geography


A brief outline or a page or less of  per culture should suffice.


3.  Geography
Where are the nations located relative to one another? What are the major cities?  Where are the areas that unique monsters and  NPCs, other creatures (e.g, marauding humanoids) , and places to explore going to be found? 

4. Deities
Who are they?  How do they differ from the default gods?  What does the player of a divine class need to know about expected behavior?   Is a priest for a given deity represented by a particular class or build?  Do the powers need to be refluffed?

5.  Magic and non martial power sources
What sources exsit in the setting and how do they work?

For example, how does arcane magic work?  Is there a deity of arcane magic or is arcane magic drawn from either the enviroment or within oneself?  Or is all arcane mage the result of a pact?  How is this represented by the inclusion or exclusion of existing classes?


6. Organizations
What are the prominent organizations?  Churches, Knightly Orders, Magical Academies, etc.  These are things that the PC might belong and from whom they received their training.

7. Important NPCs
Who are the rulers or other important individuals that the PCs might know (or at least heard of) based on racial, cultural or organizational ties?  Players may want this information to form ties

Also,  who are the major players that they may encounter? 

You don't have to stat these figures, but it is helpful to have some notes. 

8. A few bits of history or other knowledge for the individual PCs based on race, culture, or organizational ties.
You don't need to have a long drawn up history just some notes. Giving the player via his character a few bits of starting  knowledge regarding  recent events, local monsters, adventuring sites, or magic items may give the character some possible hooks for long term or short term goals should the player to decide to incorporate them.  It also gives them information about the setting that other characters may not have.  When the information is based on race, culture, and/or organization, it rewards the player with something unique based upon their choices for the character.


----------



## Stormtalon (Mar 26, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> To what degree is world-building needed to run a good/enjoyable campaign? How does world-building support depth and internal consistency? Can these qualities be achieved without a lot of world-building? What qualities does a campaign more likely have with or without a lot of world-building? What are the potential drawbacks to a lot of world-building and can it be excessive? Is it possible to "build as you go"? Etc.




Well, let's take the campaign I've sort of detailed in the original thread as a working example.  

1) Geography

For what I've got in mind plotwise, I know I need a reasonably sized yet isolated kingdom surrounded on all sides by hostile wilderness.  I also know that I'm going to need 3 areas where the kingdom is aggressively expanding -- and that they happen to be positioned such that they form an equilateral triangle with the capital city at the center (yes, this is important).  I know there's a narrow mountain pass outside of the region the party is initally working in.

2) Ecology

I've already determined that I'm going to need at least 3 different (potentially) hostile humanoid races, with a heavy focus on goblins.  I'm going to need giants -- probably Hill; I'm going to need at least one dragon and I'm going to need a metric ton of epic-tier aberrant beasties, plus elementals and at least one Primordial.

3) Society

At the basic level, Generic Monarchy #1 will suit the needs of the campaign just fine.  The church of the Raven Queen (in her role as Arbiter of Fate) will play a very large role throughout the first two tiers -- visible in some places, behind the scenes in others.  I need an order of knights and paladins devoutly loyal to both the king and the head of the order.  The folks on the frontiers are hardy, utilitarian and practical -- and are willing to accept the possibility of odd alliances to better secure their futures.  I'm going to need a vague prophecy that is easy to misinterpret in all the wrong ways.

There -- that's the world I've got to work with.  Thing is, it is a direct result of the needs of the campaign.  I don't need anything outside of it.  Vague references of distant lands dropped in here and there will be sufficient (as long as they're consistent) to keep the players thinking this is part of a larger world.

Don't get me wrong -- I enjoy world-building, but I view it as an entirely separate endeavor from creating a campaign.  It's not always necessary, and the campaign doesn't have to suffer if it's not done as the first step.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 26, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> So let's discuss these questions:
> 
> To what degree is world-building needed to run a good/enjoyable campaign? How does world-building support depth and internal consistency? Can these qualities be achieved without a lot of world-building? What qualities does a campaign more likely have with or without a lot of world-building? What are the potential drawbacks to a lot of world-building and can it be excessive? Is it possible to "build as you go"? Etc.




It is certainly possible to build as you go.  Whether or not I'd recommend that depends largely on how much internal consistency the players desire, and how good you are at remembering disparate facts and either linking them up or attaching new facts to them on the fly.

For many years, I played in a (non-D&D) game in which there was *exactly zero* world building done before characters started playing.  The GM made us aware of this, that he'd be adding details as he went, mostly during actual play.  It worked out fine.

But, to be honest, his ability to remember all the details, and make up plausible new ones as he went was above and beyond what I've seen in most GMs.  

And, I note that he never tried to run a mystery plot.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 26, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> OK, what I hear is that you, perhaps with good reason, are pissed with the so-called "setting nazis."




Personally, I'd like to see the posts where Hussar "stated pretty much exactly that, that you should focus on your campaign and not building your world" and the "setting nazis" told him he couldn't create a campaign world "without spending hours and hours and hours on setting wankery first".

I don't think it is difficult to find the posts where, in response to Hussar's statements, others said (in effect) "without _adequate_ world building, your campaign will lack _to some degree_ in depth or consistency."

IOW, I don't think he is legitimately agrieved.

(I altered the quote because of the tautology; if your campaign is not to some degree lacking in depth or consistence, then you have done adequate world-building.  I agree that the question of what is "adequate" is the interesting one, and varies based upon individual needs/tastes.)


RC


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 26, 2009)

I think it is a give-or-take, also I think it depends on the campaign style that you are running. I think a couple things need to be taken into consideration:

1) How plot-oriented is the game, and can you as a DM keep the narrative flow going and active between the Players and You. This is important not just in eliminating as much need for detailed world as well as worry about inconsitences and "realism". Essentially keep the minds active they won't have time to ponder such things.

2) Related to #1 is it more plot-oriented or sandbox. I think sandbox it be more advisable to have a more detailed world, since well to me it would seem harder to set up interesting occurrences, adventures, etc. without some support with such on-the-fly gameplay. While on the other side of the fence a more plot-oriented game can be hindered by sticking to stringently to a campaign world where certain elements of the plot may not run as well.

Those two points are very important to me when I set up my games. I personally while I like making up worlds, etc. just for fun chop them all up when it comes to running a game. I first and foremost set-up plots, NPCs, etc. and then simply add any world elements as need be, "I need such and such a thing, cool, there it is", etc. 

I think building a plot without a world can give you more freedom in the plot, but you just won't have as much resources to support the plot on. Thus why I just leave any setting stuff to the side and simply add bite-size pieces as I need them, but if I don't they will never see the light of day. So I guess you can say the plot as it unfolds builds the world.


----------



## Kask (Mar 26, 2009)

It all depends on what kind of game you are going to run.  If my players just want to hack & slash through levels, then no.  If we are going to run a campaign that spans many generations of characters through many levels, then I fully flesh it out in a similar fashion to the original Greyhawk setting.


----------



## gizmo33 (Mar 26, 2009)

Hussar said:


> This is a very different approach than what has traditionally been advocated by a great number of people in the hobby. Heck, even the various Dungeon Master Guides include fairly lengthy sections on world building.




I don't remember this.  My recollection of past DMGs (especially 1st edition) was that the advice was to start with a village where the dungeon was located, and expand outward as needed.  If I think back through other notes in the DMG, in no particular order, there was stuff on versimilitude with treasure ("it's not just a pile of coins" advice), preparing reactions for organized foes, reasons why PC rulers might have a hard time forcing serfdom on the locals (I remember something about a Conan-type fighter leading the rebellion) and so on.  Every one of those elements were advice on how to build a reaction to a PC action, which AFAICT is not the world-building you're talking about.

The 3E DMG had notes on demographics, but they were very sketchy and seemed geared towards "what can a PC buy in this place".  There were some notes on how much a bushel of wheat costs and stuff like that.  But otherwise, I don't recognize your criticism of DMGs as having lots of world building information.  Mainly because I can't recall any.  And if I could I would be very curious about how they tackled the "medieval-historical vs. fantasy" choices and other such things.  But I can't.  

So are you sure it was in the DMGs?


----------



## Mercurius (Mar 26, 2009)

Storminator said:


> I was going to fork this thread as well.
> 
> Instead I'm going to step on yours.
> 
> ...




Our thread, Storminator, ours 

As for your outline, that's great stuff and very useful for me in the stage I'm at in my campaign (finished introductory 1-3 level adventure; beginning the "meat" of the campaign).

I'll have to read it over again to see if I have any questions.



Hussar said:


> Aww, but, if I can't get up on my soapbox, I must be doing something wrong.




You can get up, just don't expect to not get knocked off  -- hey, do me the favor if I'm ever soapboxing! 



Hussar said:


> Ok, fair enough, I'm overstating my case.  It was a bit of a knee jerk comment based on Storm Talon's original thread about how he was building a campaign from the ground up, not based on any particular setting, but, instead, basing it almost entirely on plot.
> 
> This is a very different approach than what has traditionally been advocated by a great number of people in the hobby.  Heck, even the various Dungeon Master Guides include fairly lengthy sections on world building.  The typical advice is either top down or bottom up, but, in the end it's generally, "build the setting first, then figure out what kind of adventures go on in that setting."
> 
> ...




Yes, very good points--and I agree with your basic point (and I'm very into worldbuilding--have been doing it since I was a wee-lad and even before I got into RPGs). Your differentiation between setting and campaign is key; in my comparison of a novel it relates to setting and story, respectively: You can create a great setting but still write a crappy novel if the story isn't good. But in both cases I think the creation of setting and campaign/story is symbiotic and come-into-being concurrently. One feeds the other and a starting point can be either setting or story. For example, you could start with an imagination of a world with three moons and different kinds of deities from each that hold sway over the world with the waxing and waning of their moon; or you could start with a story hook like a group of strangers wake up in forest glen, naked and amnesiac, with small jewels imbedded in their foreheads...either idea starts "building a nest" around it almost automatically. The key being that story is latent within setting, and setting is the "womb" for story.

More later...the family is wondering why I'm not in the living room with them


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 26, 2009)

*14 questions, with answers*

1. Is much world buidling needed: No. 

2. Is it fun for some DMs: yes.

3. Do broad elements of the world (aka setting) impact players perceptions, charecters, and things in play: yes. 

4. In a good way: sometimes. 

5. Do DMs overdo certain details and focus on the wrong ones: yes.

6. Do players get bored by certain details: yes. 

7. But can't details help bring life to the setting and game: yes.

8. Do pictures help: greatly. 

9. And handouts: yes, they can also help.

10. But can't setting development in general become a straight jacket: yes. 

11. And lead to the DM feeling under apreciated: oh yes.

12. But can't a "world" also inspire the DM and players to do things not originally anticipated: yes.

13. And even take things in a (better) direction that fall outside the "story" first imagined by the DM: yes, a good world can do that.  

14. Isn't the best strategy for the DM to do what he needs and wants to do from the "top" and the "bottom" and get on with it: its a strategy.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 26, 2009)

Hussar said:


> This is a very different approach than what has traditionally been advocated by a great number of people in the hobby.  Heck, even the various Dungeon Master Guides include fairly lengthy sections on world building.  The typical advice is either top down or bottom up, but, in the end it's generally, "build the setting first, then figure out what kind of adventures go on in that setting."




What if your players figure out what they want to do in the setting you have created and invent their own adventures though?  I mean isn't this just as valid, or even moreso, a way to create satisfying play for both parties involved? 



Hussar said:


> I really do disagree with that approach.  I think a far better approach, and much better advice to new DM's out there, is "start with a story.  Think about what events would be important to that story.  Then, start building from there."  Even if the story is just, "Go out and see what's over that next hill", it's better to start from the story angle than to design the other side of the hill and then work backwards.




I disagree here.  IMO, a well crafted setting by the nature of being well-crafted allows PC's to create their own stories.  It is simply a vibrant backdrop for the goals and aspirations the PC's have and will pursue.  

Creating a "story" however assumes you know exactly what your PC's want to do... and if they don't want to do it, your setting (since it's built around that particular story) is less likely to be accommodating to their goals on the fly.

This style also assumes that the story you create will be a good (in relationship to what the PC's want) story, but what if it isn't?  Since the setting is built around this particular story, instead of being an interesting setting ina nad of itself, the game's fun is based solely on whether your idea for a story and it's implementation are enjoyable to all at the table.  Now if one has a setting constructed not to suit a story but as a setting, well then again the PC's can, if they desire, create a more suitable story, by exploring those aspects which intrigue or interest them.



Hussar said:


> Fair enough for taking me to task on my rhetoric.  I'll agree with that.  Bit too strongly worded is right.  But, in the end, I do think my basic point is solid.  Many gamers, and also those dispensing gaming advice, have placed a very strong emphasis on setting over plot.  I mean, those old DungeonCraft articles from Dungeon are great.  They really are a fantastic series on how to build a setting.  However, IMO, they are not a great way to build a campaign




I think your basic point is highly dependent on the players and DM.  IME, my players use to need a "story" handed to them,   but after some awkwardness and frank discussion I realized they were becoming use to this mode of play and I really wanted to see the type of "story" they would craft given free reign with their characters... and so I started designing a world, giving them about 2 pages on it... and from there they would design a character who fits in that world.  The funny thing is I realized that some of my players had stories they wanted to explore from the minute they created a character and they could more easily direct the game to accomodate that in this manner, while those who didn't were more than happy to tag along, kill some things and play a part in the other's stories.  YMMV of course.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 26, 2009)

In practical terms, it depends on the players. My latest group has decided that what they want to do is explore the local dungeon, so I focus on building that.

They've had encounters with people who told them of other places that I put on the map, and of ongoing events that I noted. Some of those had been fleshed out before the first session, in some cases using modules others wrote. Others are still just sketches.

A big "sandbox" laden with detail might not be very useful if players choose to stay in just one corner of it. Thinking that one must have a lot prepared can be a great excuse for procrastination in actually starting a campaign. In the event, the stimulation of play and keeping a step ahead of the players may be more inspiring than trying to fill in the blanks outside that context.

On the other hand, one might find the creative exercise so engaging in its own right that whether or not it ever comes into the game has no bearing on satisfaction; the creation itself is a private form of play. In that case, one might beware of the temptation to lay too much detail on the RPG players. They might not appreciate "homework assignments." They might feel that the adventures of their characters, driven by their choices, are too much in the shadow of the Game Master's creation.

All these factors vary so much from person to person that best advice by far is to know oneself and one's players.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 26, 2009)

Imaro, 
I tried to give you an XP for your post.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 26, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> *To what degree is world-building needed to run a good/enjoyable campaign?*



World-building is a requirement for me when I DM. 



> *How does world-building support depth and internal consistency?*



How does cooking support flavor and nutritional value? Depth and internal consistency are characteristics of the built world. What are you asking here? 



> *Can these qualities be achieved without a lot of world-building?*



Certainly. So long as the campaign's present action is complex and consistent. Hundreds of years of history are not required to set a dramatic story in motion. Sometimes all it takes is someone coveting another person's spouse/stuff/position. 



> *What qualities does a campaign more likely have with or without a lot of world-building?*



Campaign's that feature a detailed world are more suited for exploration, and there's usually a tacit agreement that part of the reward for playing is informational. The players enjoy finding out more about the fictional space. 



> *What are the potential drawbacks to a lot of world-building and can it be excessive?*



I think we all know it can be excessive. 

The biggest drawbacks are usually tedium (because the players simply aren't as interested in all the details the DM shares) and protectiveness (the DM is reluctant to let PC actions disturb their prized creation).

The second is why I gleefully refer to world-building as wankery, or worse, even though I'm an inveterate setting designer. It helps keep me in the proper frame of mind...


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Imaro said:


> What if your players figure out what they want to do in the setting you have created and invent their own adventures though?  I mean isn't this just as valid, or even moreso, a way to create satisfying play for both parties involved?




I'm not saying that you must lockstep the players into your single railroaded plot.  Heck, that's just as easy to do with a well developed world.  See the Time of Troubles.  See the Dragonlance modules.  Both highly developed worlds with lockstep railroad plots.  Having an overarching story does not equal railroading.  

Take Savage Tide for example.  If the players choose to completely ignore the plot (the Savage Tide is coming), they can certainly do so.  But, then the world will be destroyed.  

A lot of this is solved by having your players buy into the campaign in the first place.  If they want a very open ended campaign, they should tell you so at the outset and you can plan accordingly.  Or, if you are basing the campaign on their backstories, then you obviously don't need a larger over arching story line.  

But, you still don't need a lot of world building either.



> I disagree here.  IMO, a well crafted setting by the nature of being well-crafted allows PC's to create their own stories.  It is simply a vibrant backdrop for the goals and aspirations the PC's have and will pursue.
> 
> Creating a "story" however assumes you know exactly what your PC's want to do... and if they don't want to do it, your setting (since it's built around that particular story) is less likely to be accommodating to their goals on the fly.




Again, you are connecting "story" with railroading.  That's simply not true.  Having events in your campaign world that unfold independent of the players is story or plot.  It is not railroading though.

See, and a well crafted setting can help as an inspiration for the PC's, I'll agree with that.  However, it can also seriously impair creativity if handled badly - you cannot be X because page Y of setting book Z contradicts you. 

There is also the issue that you wind up with a "tour des Realms" sort of campaign, where there really isn't much of a story, the DM just wants to show off his work of art and leads the players by the nose from point to point to point, not because the story would be better for it, but because he doesn't want to waste his hard work.  

Not that this will automatically happen, just that this very much can be a pitfall of heavy worldbuilding DM's.



> This style also assumes that the story you create will be a good (in relationship to what the PC's want) story, but what if it isn't?  Since the setting is built around this particular story, instead of being an interesting setting ina nad of itself, the game's fun is based solely on whether your idea for a story and it's implementation are enjoyable to all at the table.  Now if one has a setting constructed not to suit a story but as a setting, well then again the PC's can, if they desire, create a more suitable story, by exploring those aspects which intrigue or interest them.




Again, this assumes a couple of points.

One, you've assumed that the DM is working completely separate from the players and is not taking into account anything they want.  That the DM comes to the table with an entire campaign and says, "Who wants to play".  You can do that, but, you don't have to.  A DM could also base his entire campaign on what the players hand him and still not do much or anything in the way of world building.  The players could drop hooks and plots in their backgrounds and the DM can build his campaign around that.  This does not require world building.

Second, say that the DM does come with a complete campaign to the table.  This is a table issue.  The players have to buy into that campaign beforehand.  If I come in with Savage Tide and the players aren't interested in that, then I would be a very poor DM forcing them to play it.  For the same reason that if I come in with a Forgotten Realms campaign and no one wants to play in FR, then I would still be a poor DM for doing that.

World building or lack thereof isn't really an issue here.



> I think your basic point is highly dependent on the players and DM.  IME, my players use to need a "story" handed to them,   but after some awkwardness and frank discussion I realized they were becoming use to this mode of play and I really wanted to see the type of "story" they would craft given free reign with their characters... and so I started designing a world, giving them about 2 pages on it... and from there they would design a character who fits in that world.  The funny thing is I realized that some of my players had stories they wanted to explore from the minute they created a character and they could more easily direct the game to accomodate that in this manner, while those who didn't were more than happy to tag along, kill some things and play a part in the other's stories.  YMMV of course.




My question is, did the players who had stories they wanted to explore the minute they created a character have stories in mind that were expressly tied to your setting?  Or were they more concerned with specific themes or tropes?  "My wife was kidnapped by slavers" for example isn't tied to any specific setting and can be done in pretty much any setting.  "I want to explore unknown areas" can be done with a random encounter chart and a map.  

IME there are extremely few themes or concepts that cannot be ported into any setting from any other setting.  Thus, they are pretty much independent of setting.  

Yes, obviously, you have to do some setting building in any campaign.  I know that and would never try to run a "Waiting for Godot" style campaign.  But, by and large, you can go beyond the specifics and look at the themes that the players want to explore and build your campaign from there.

All without having to spend several hours, as GregK wants us to do, detailing a page of information for every single culture before you even start the game.  While that doesn't sound like much, that could easily be ten, twenty pages of information you have to create even before you sit down to write your first adventure.

To me, that's about nineteen pages too much work.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I'm not saying that you must lockstep the players into your single railroaded plot. Heck, that's just as easy to do with a well developed world. See the Time of Troubles. See the Dragonlance modules. Both highly developed worlds with lockstep railroad plots. Having an overarching story does not equal railroading.






Your right, and yet every time you argue against worldbuilding you take it to the negative extreme to prove your point. Worldbuilding is bad because a DM *could* be pre-occupied with the wrong details, or become too attached to his setting... yet neither of these is a necessary state for good worldbuilding. 






Hussar said:


> Take Savage Tide for example. If the players choose to completely ignore the plot (the Savage Tide is coming), they can certainly do so. But, then the world will be destroyed.






Uhmm...ok, I guess they have a choice.





Hussar said:


> A lot of this is solved by having your players buy into the campaign in the first place. If they want a very open ended campaign, they should tell you so at the outset and you can plan accordingly. Or, if you are basing the campaign on their backstories, then you obviously don't need a larger over arching story line. But, you still don't need a lot of world building either.





 I agree with your first paragraph, buy in is paramount and can shape what method works best for a DM... as far as the second paragraph... And you also don't *need* to construct your world around "story" either. It's a preference, and while one may work better for you it doesn't in any way make your preference the "right" way to construct a campaign. 






Hussar said:


> Again, you are connecting "story" with railroading. That's simply not true. Having events in your campaign world that unfold independent of the players is story or plot. It is not railroading though.





Only because, as I said before many of your points on worldbuilding being a waste or unimportant are based around bad worldbuilding as opposed to the neutral act of worldbuilding... 






Hussar said:


> See, and a well crafted setting can help as an inspiration for the PC's, I'll agree with that. However, it can also seriously impair creativity if handled badly - you cannot be X because page Y of setting book Z contradicts you.





 See...like the above..."if handled badly".  Though I could turn around and say no, you can't play an ewok in my Ravenloft game because it isn't being creative within the chosen genre we are playing in... it's being disruptive and more than a bit silly.





Hussar said:


> There is also the issue that you wind up with a "tour des Realms" sort of campaign, where there really isn't much of a story, the DM just wants to show off his work of art and leads the players by the nose from point to point to point, not because the story would be better for it, but because he doesn't want to waste his hard work. Not that this will automatically happen, just that this very much can be a pitfall of heavy worldbuilding DM's.






And there are many pitfalls in constructing a "story" based game, but I don't think you can compare the worst that could happen with one method, to the best result of another method.





Hussar said:


> Again, this assumes a couple of points. One, you've assumed that the DM is working completely separate from the players and is not taking into account anything they want. That the DM comes to the table with an entire campaign and says, "Who wants to play". You can do that, but, you don't have to. A DM could also base his entire campaign on what the players hand him and still not do much or anything in the way of world building. The players could drop hooks and plots in their backgrounds and the DM can build his campaign around that. This does not require world building.






Why do you keep using the word "required"... neither worldbuilding or "story"-building is required. Theyr are prefered methods to shape one's game to it's desired form. I can lay five dungeon tiles on a table and flip to a random page in the Monster Manual for what's in each room. The PC's fight them, we're playing D&D but it has neither a world or story. 






Hussar said:


> Second, say that the DM does come with a complete campaign to the table. This is a table issue. The players have to buy into that campaign beforehand. If I come in with Savage Tide and the players aren't interested in that, then I would be a very poor DM forcing them to play it. For the same reason that if I come in with a Forgotten Realms campaign and no one wants to play in FR, then I would still be a poor DM for doing that. World building or lack thereof isn't really an issue here.





 Now you're starting to get my point. The only way Worldbuilding or "Story"-building becomes an "issue" is when done badly or when forced upon someone as the "better" style.





Hussar said:


> My question is, did the players who had stories they wanted to explore the minute they created a character have stories in mind that were expressly tied to your setting? Or were they more concerned with specific themes or tropes? "My wife was kidnapped by slavers" for example isn't tied to any specific setting and can be done in pretty much any setting. "I want to explore unknown areas" can be done with a random encounter chart and a map. IME there are extremely few themes or concepts that cannot be ported into any setting from any other setting. Thus, they are pretty much independent of setting.





 First, the themes my PC's want to explore are often alot more involved, than "explore the next dungeon". They might explore something like "Does one become a monster in hunting monsters?"... now I'm sorry I could run this game in the Forgotten Realms, but I think it would work better and both I and my players would get more enjoyment from exploring this in Ravenloft, it's a setting constructed to facilitate something like this. Have you considered mood, genre, etc.? I mean the types of stories one can more easily tell in Dark Sun are different from the type one would more easily tell in Forgotten Realms. You see my group and I really do believe that what world you choose to play in does affect the enjoyability for us.






Hussar said:


> Yes, obviously, you have to do some setting building in any campaign. I know that and would never try to run a "Waiting for Godot" style campaign. But, by and large, you can go beyond the specifics and look at the themes that the players want to explore and build your campaign from there. *All without having to spend several hours, as GregK wants us to do, detailing a page of information for every single culture before you even start the game.* While that doesn't sound like much, that could easily be ten, twenty pages of information you have to create even before you sit down to write your first adventure. To me, that's about nineteen pages too much work.





 Hyperbole is great, especially when it is used to prove your point huh? I'm sorry when did the world-building police put down the laws for how many pages must be composed on certain things?


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 27, 2009)

Greg K actually wrote, "A brief outline or a page or less of  per culture should suffice." Note the clause _or less_. Also, "What I think is helpful ... are things that create the sense of a coherent setting and inform players how things will differ from RAW." _Helpful_ is far from "required". He then offered examples. His basis was clearly stated as elements "that will interest me in participating." Hussar's interests may be different.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> I don't remember this.  My recollection of past DMGs (especially 1st edition) was that the advice was to start with a village where the dungeon was located, and expand outward as needed.  If I think back through other notes in the DMG, in no particular order, there was stuff on versimilitude with treasure ("it's not just a pile of coins" advice), preparing reactions for organized foes, reasons why PC rulers might have a hard time forcing serfdom on the locals (I remember something about a Conan-type fighter leading the rebellion) and so on.  Every one of those elements were advice on how to build a reaction to a PC action, which AFAICT is not the world-building you're talking about.
> 
> The 3E DMG had notes on demographics, but they were very sketchy and seemed geared towards "what can a PC buy in this place".  There were some notes on how much a bushel of wheat costs and stuff like that.  But otherwise, I don't recognize your criticism of DMGs as having lots of world building information.  Mainly because I can't recall any.  And if I could I would be very curious about how they tackled the "medieval-historical vs. fantasy" choices and other such things.  But I can't.
> 
> So are you sure it was in the DMGs?




Yup.  Went back and looked at the Campaigns section (Chapter 5 of the 3e DMG, page 141) and read the first page.  I shall quote:



			
				3.0 DMG Page 141 said:
			
		

> ... A campaign first requires a world.  You have two options when it comes to making a world for your campaign:
> 
> Use a published setting...
> 
> Create your own world:  For more information on how to do this, see Chapter 6:World Building.




Pretty cut and dried if you ask me.  Are you honestly going to tell me that the common wisdom of campaign creation ISN'T world building first?  That the Dungeon Craft articles were totally off base and out of touch?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Only because, as I said before many of your points on worldbuilding being a waste or unimportant are based around bad worldbuilding as opposed to the neutral act of worldbuilding...




To me, there is no neutral act of world building.  To me, world building is going above and beyond what is required by the game or the story.  If you need a town for the action to occur in, then by all means, have a town.  However, if there is no need for, say, a thieves guild in the town, because the players have no particular reason to interact with that thieves guild (they aren't interested in that story) then spending time detailing out the heirarchy of that thieve's guild is a complete waste of time.

It is, OTOH, completely consistent with world building.



> First, the themes my PC's want to explore are often alot more involved, than "explore the next dungeon". They might explore something like "Does one become a monster in hunting monsters?"... now I'm sorry I could run this game in the Forgotten Realms, but I think it would work better and both I and my players would get more enjoyment from exploring this in Ravenloft, it's a setting constructed to facilitate something like this. Have you considered mood, genre, etc.? I mean the types of stories one can more easily tell in Dark Sun are different from the type one would more easily tell in Forgotten Realms. You see my group and I really do believe that what world you choose to play in does affect the enjoyability for us.




And that's perfectly fine.  We agree with that.  Setting most certainly can be used to set mood, theme and tone.  That's precisely what it IS used for.  

So, let's use your example.  You're doing a sort of narrative game where you want to explore the theme of "do we become monsters if we hunt monsters".  Ok, that's cool.  Now, do you need Lord Soth's realm in that setting to do that?  Do you need 98% of the Ravenloft backstory to deal with that?  Nope, you don't.  You can strip out almost the entirety of that setting as it will have zero impact on your game.

So, as a DM, should I then create an ENTIRE Ravenloft setting before I play this theme game?  Because, as a world builder, that's what you are advocating.  That I have to detail out an entire setting, independent of my campaign, before I begin play.  

In my mind, you start with that theme, "do we become monsters", set up a series of locations/adventures linked by that theme, each location having a particular mood and feel, and tie the entire package back to the PC's.  Everything in the world outside of what the PC's interact with, and anything that isn't linked to that theme, I couldn't be bothered dealing with.

And that's the difference between setting building and world building.  Setting is by definition tied to plot.  World building is, by definition, separate from plot.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 27, 2009)

What is with people redefining terms as straw men to knock down?

Why not just talk about how you go about setting up a game?


----------



## Imaro (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> To me, there is no neutral act of world building.  To me, world building is going above and beyond what is required by the game or the story.  If you need a town for the action to occur in, then by all means, have a town.  However, if there is no need for, say, a thieves guild in the town, because the players have no particular reason to interact with that thieves guild (they aren't interested in that story) then spending time detailing out the heirarchy of that thieve's guild is a complete waste of time.
> 
> It is, OTOH, completely consistent with world building.




So you determine what is "above and beyond" what is "required" by the game... and here I thought each persons game was a unique thing, if not in all ways at least in some.  How do you know your PC's won't decide that a Thieve's Guild is the perfect place to get some info from?  Or to get a loan for better equipment?  Or even to take over? (NOTE: My Pc's have decided to do each of these things at one time or another and didn't necessarily tell me before game that was their plan.)  That's the problem with pre-determining what is necessary or required as a general thing.  In my game the Thieve's Guild isn't a story it is a situation which can and might be interacted with in any way the PC's might decide to.  It actually empowers their creativity by offering another option to interact with in the game.



Hussar said:


> And that's perfectly fine.  We agree with that.  Setting most certainly can be used to set mood, theme and tone.  That's precisely what it IS used for.
> 
> So, let's use your example.  You're doing a sort of narrative game where you want to explore the theme of "do we become monsters if we hunt monsters".  Ok, that's cool.  Now, do you need Lord Soth's realm in that setting to do that?  Do you need 98% of the Ravenloft backstory to deal with that?  Nope, you don't.  You can strip out almost the entirety of that setting as it will have zero impact on your game.
> 
> So, as a DM, should I then create an ENTIRE Ravenloft setting before I play this theme game?  Because, as a world builder, that's what you are advocating.  That I have to detail out an entire setting, independent of my campaign, before I begin play.




I would... for the simple fact that I would want any aspect of this theme (not just the aspects I think of when designing the story to take them through) could be explored if any of my players wanted to.  There's no way I can know how this theme will necessarily be approached by my players or exactly what aspects interest them, thus yes it is better to have a exstensive world that is vast enough for them to go in directions I may have not considered.  For us it produces better gameplay. 



Hussar said:


> In my mind, you start with that theme, "do we become monsters", set up a series of locations/adventures linked by that theme, each location having a particular mood and feel, and tie the entire package back to the PC's.  Everything in the world outside of what the PC's interact with, and anything that isn't linked to that theme, I couldn't be bothered dealing with.
> 
> And that's the difference between setting building and world building.  Setting is by definition tied to plot.  World building is, by definition, separate from plot.




Wow, it must be great to know how, when and where each PC wants to explore a particular theme... actually, I take that back... I like for the PC's to surprise me and I find the bigger the canvas for them to paint on, the more likelly they are to do something unexpected, interesting and exciting.  I love how you claim limiting their race may stifle creativity... but ignoring everything *you feel* is " outside of what the PC's interact with, and anything that isn't linked to that theme" isn't.  If you can determine all the possible ways someone could approach and explore a theme... well then why are you in the least bit intersted in exploring it?

On a side note, why limit yourself to this theme if, through interacting with the world the PC's realize they want togo in another direction and you all find it interesting, why not go for it?  So in Ravenloft your players instead decide to explore the themes of faith in light of overpowering evil... but you just wasted all that work constructing an entire world around the "story" for another theme.  Is that wasted effort?


----------



## Nightson (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Take Savage Tide for example.  If the players choose to completely ignore the plot (the Savage Tide is coming), they can certainly do so.  But, then the world will be destroyed.




That's not a choice.  That's just passive-aggressive railroading.


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 27, 2009)

To my mind, there are two ways in which world-building can be "necessary." First off, there's the idea that world-building is something necessary for the players. If you have the explorer type of player, who wants to find out the lore of the campaign, for instance. This is kind of like the person who reads up on all the game fiction and supplements for a published setting, only in this case they tend to get more of a kick out of discovering this stuff in-game or talking about the world with the GM. Players like this are happy to find out that there's detail to the world. They love it when you give them maps. They like descriptions of local cuisine and interesting cultural traditions. I tend to wind up with at least one or two in every gaming group. 

The second way is that world-building can be "necessary" for the GM. It's a reward for running the game, in a way. Some GMs love the activity. They tend to be the same sort of lore-enjoying player, only in this case it's a certain enticement to work on the game. It's a process of inspiration, much like for other GMs watching a favorite sword-and-sandals movie or cranking up the Poledouris would be. 

As always, it depends on the individuals. But world-building might be key to why some people love a fantasy RPG better than any other hobby.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Imaro said:
			
		

> So you determine what is "above and beyond" what is "required" by the game... and here I thought each persons game was a unique thing, if not in all ways at least in some. How do you know your PC's won't decide that a Thieve's Guild is the perfect place to get some info from? Or to get a loan for better equipment? Or even to take over? (NOTE: My Pc's have decided to do each of these things at one time or another and didn't necessarily tell me before game that was their plan.) That's the problem with pre-determining what is necessary or required as a general thing. In my game the Thieve's Guild isn't a story it is a situation which can and might be interacted with in any way the PC's might decide to. It actually empowers their creativity by offering another option to interact with in the game.




So, you're saying that your players, with no preamble, with no pre-existing ideas, suddenly decided to take over the Thieve's Guild with absolutely no warning?  Wow, that's pretty much completely alien to my games.

For me, it would be, "Hey, is there a thieves guild in this town?"  "umm, sure, why do you ask?"  "Well, I'd really like to get involved in that, cos, it would totally fit with my character and I have some great ideas."  "Ok, that's cool.  You're going to have to do a bit of background searching into the town, make some contacts first."

And, since that's going to take some in game time, we'll come back to that next week and poof, now there's a thieves guild in the town, because that's what the players wanted to interact with.

And here's the thing.  At no time did I have to detail up the heirarchy of the thieves guild until such time as the players made it an issue.  Not world building, setting construction, because the plot of the game now focuses on the thieves guild.  If the players never brought up the thieves guild and I as the DM had no intention of using a storyline with a thieves guild, the theives guild never exists.



			
				Nightson said:
			
		

> That's not a choice. That's just passive-aggressive railroading.




So, all the NPC's in your world are just frozen in Final Fantasy style limbo until such time as the PC's interact with them?  The Baron never tries to take over his neighbour independent of your PC's actions?  There are no plots OTHER than what the players interact with?

And this is what you consider world building?


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 27, 2009)

It was a totally different thread with totally different main point (well, maybe not _totally_ different), but the post I made here covers a lot of how I feel regarding this thread. It even says "I agree with Hussar" (in so many words).  

Well, I do think that Hussar overstates his case a bit, but I do agree with his basic idea. It is better to build a campaign, rather than a world. One of the most important parts of world-building is creating options the players need in order to make their own choices and controlling their own fates. However, this is a part of world-building that can't be done until the campaign has already started. Locking in details before the campaign has started limits the options available to both the players and the DM, so in order to create a flexible and fun game experience it is often best to delay setting things in stone until it is absolutely necessary (which is often in the middle of play).

While I agree with many posters here that letting the players control the pace of the campaign is essential to having a fun game, I just don't think it is at all necessary or even helpful to create a detailed world beforehand in order to have such a campaign.

Of course, it is very fun to worldbuild. I create settings and worlds rather compulsively. However, I think that worldbuilding in great detail without the context of a specific campaign leads you astray more than it helps. I have long since given up the notion that every world I create in my head is appropriate for a D&D campaign.


----------



## Nightson (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, all the NPC's in your world are just frozen in Final Fantasy style limbo until such time as the PC's interact with them?  The Baron never tries to take over his neighbour independent of your PC's actions?  There are no plots OTHER than what the players interact with?
> 
> And this is what you consider world building?




Option A:  The DM's plothook
Option B: The world is destroyed

That's not a meaningful choice.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 27, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Imaro,
> I tried to give you an XP for your post.



Gotcha covered there.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> It was a totally different thread with totally different main point (well, maybe not _totally_ different), but the post I made here covers a lot of how I feel regarding this thread. It even says "I agree with Hussar" (in so many words).
> 
> Well, I do think that Hussar overstates his case a bit, but I do agree with his basic idea. It is better to build a campaign, rather than a world. One of the most important parts of world-building is creating options the players need in order to make their own choices and controlling their own fates. However, this is a part of world-building that can't be done until the campaign has already started. Locking in details before the campaign has started limits the options available to both the players and the DM, so in order to create a flexible and fun game experience it is often best to delay setting things in stone until it is absolutely necessary (which is often in the middle of play).
> 
> ...




I fully endorse this.  And thank you for toning down my rhetoric.  

My personal gripe is with the rather large body of DM advice that you see dispensed either in Dungeon, or on various blogs or forums, or, heck, even in the DMG, which places World Building as a requirement for campaign creation.  I disagree (obviously) with this way of thinking. 

Not that world building is necessarily bad.  And, sorry Imaro, reading my own posts, I can see why you would think that I think that.  I have no real beef with world building in and of itself.  I just think that its place in campaign creation has been too ... errr ... pronounced over the years.  It has been enshrined into the collective minds of gamers and I really question whether it should be.



Nightson said:


> Option A:  The DM's plothook
> Option B: The world is destroyed
> 
> That's not a meaningful choice.




So, all NPC's in your world are frozen in place, never making any decisions until such time as the PC's interact with them?  

Sure, it's a bit cheezy, but, the only difference between that plothook and any other plothook is scale.  There is no difference between someone trying to summon the Elder Gods to destroy the world and Baron Von Nasty trying to kill the king on a practical game level.

So, unless you never use doom cults in your game, you don't really get the point.


----------



## Nightson (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> There is no difference between someone trying to summon the Elder Gods to destroy the world and Baron Von Nasty trying to kill the king on a practical game level.




In one your players get to keep playing in the other they don't?  Seems like a pretty big practical difference to me.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Mar 27, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> While I agree with many posters here that letting the players control the pace of the campaign is essential to having a fun game, I just don't think it is at all necessary or even helpful to create a detailed world beforehand in order to have such a campaign.



Have to agree. I'm a recovering worldbuilder (  ) who spent way too much time and effort tinkering with stuff the players never knew or cared about. So, my answer to the question in the thread subject would be "Only as much as it improves the game."



> Of course, it is very fun to worldbuild. I create settings and worlds rather compulsively. However, I think that worldbuilding in great detail without the context of a specific campaign leads you astray more than it helps. I have long since given up the notion that every world I create in my head is appropriate for a D&D campaign.



Also very true. I haven't given up on worldbuilding, I just have recognized that it doesn't have to be in the context of gaming!


----------



## Andor (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I really do disagree with that approach.  I think a far better approach, and much better advice to new DM's out there, is "start with a story.  Think about what events would be important to that story.  Then, start building from there."  Even if the story is just, "Go out and see what's over that next hill", it's better to start from the story angle than to design the other side of the hill and then work backwards.




You're giving me nightmares. No, wait... those are memories. Like the time we captured the Sherriff who had hired humanoids raiding the commerce coming into his own town. We questioned him. Gm's reply? "I never thought to give him a motivation." Dead campaign.

Or the very last D&D game I played in we were trying to identify which of the King's 5 councilors was the traitor. So I asked what there names were and what they were like. GM's reply? "He tells you." 
Me: Uhh ... I want that information.
GM: He gives it to you.
Me: What are their names?
GM: He tell you the names.
...Only at this point did it dawn on me that the GM had set up a political intrigue without bothering to flesh out actual names and faces of the actors.  How the hell we were supposed to tell nameless good guy one from nameless bad guy 3 I have no idea.

So count me in the 'World building good' camp, please.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Mar 27, 2009)

Andor said:


> You're giving me nightmares. No, wait... those are memories. Like the time we captured the Sherriff who had hired humanoids raiding the commerce coming into his own town. We questioned him. Gm's reply? "I never thought to give him a motivation." Dead campaign.
> 
> Or the very last D&D game I played in we were trying to identify which of the King's 5 councilors was the traitor. So I asked what there names were and what they were like. GM's reply? "He tells you."
> Me: Uhh ... I want that information.
> ...




These are examples of lousy GMing, for sure, but they're not arguments for or against world building - they're arguments for putting a moment of thought in your adventure building!


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Nightson said:


> In one your players get to keep playing in the other they don't?  Seems like a pretty big practical difference to me.




There's no difference in the context of inside the game world though.  In both cases, NPC's are taking actions that are beyond the scope of PC involvement.  In both cases, the bad guy wins if the PC's do nothing about it (presuming of course their plans go the way they want them to, and, well, as a DM, most of the time they do.)



Andor said:


> You're giving me nightmares. No, wait... those are memories. Like the time we captured the Sherriff who had hired humanoids raiding the commerce coming into his own town. We questioned him. Gm's reply? "I never thought to give him a motivation." Dead campaign.
> 
> Or the very last D&D game I played in we were trying to identify which of the King's 5 councilors was the traitor. So I asked what there names were and what they were like. GM's reply? "He tells you."
> Me: Uhh ... I want that information.
> ...




But, world building has nothing to do with this.  He neglected setting.  But, the names and motivations of the people the PC's are directly interacting with have nothing to do with world building and everything to do with plot and setting.  

World building would be detailing the family trees of those five councilors.  It has nothing to do with the plot (Find the traitor) and exists pretty much independently.  The names of the councilors OTOH, DOES directly impact the plot (if for no other reason than reducing confusion) and is required.

Look, again, I'm not saying that you can go with Father Generic the Cleric of Good Gawd B gives you Quest B17 to recover Macguffin 12.  That's ridiculous.  It breaks mood for one thing.  Totally ruins feel.  Good DMing advice would be to have at least a little more detail than that.  

However, bad DMing advice says that you need to create an entire church of Good Gawd B before you even sit down at the table.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> For me, it would be, "Hey, is there a thieves guild in this town?"  "umm, sure, why do you ask?"  "Well, I'd really like to get involved in that, cos, it would totally fit with my character and I have some great ideas."  "Ok, that's cool.  You're going to have to do a bit of background searching into the town, make some contacts first."
> 
> And, since that's going to take some in game time, we'll come back to that next week and poof, now there's a thieves guild in the town, because that's what the players wanted to interact with.
> 
> And here's the thing.  At no time did I have to detail up the heirarchy of the thieves guild until such time as the players made it an issue.



However, you've suddenly got a pile of work to do between sessions; which could have been at least part-way done beforehand.  Me, I prefer to at least try and get the setting to the point where it'll run itself, leaving me free to worry about the minutae the players are getting their characters involved in during the session.







> Not world building, setting construction, because the plot of the game now focuses on the thieves guild.  If the players never brought up the thieves guild and I as the DM had no intention of using a storyline with a thieves guild, the theives guild never exists.



Except that it does exist, if only in your head as one of many logical things for a decent-size town to have in it.  Just because something is never interacted with does not mean it doesn't exist.

The really useful thing about world-building is that once the world - in particular, its history - is at least vaguely built you can then start mining it for stories.  Sure, sometimes you can get lucky and have something you make up on the fly really fit together nicely after the fact; but unless you've got a memory like a computer you're more than likely going to end up contradicting yourself at some point, and bang goes internal consistency.

For my current campaign I spent more time than usual on its history - and I now find myself with more stories to tell in that game than I'll ever have time for; never mind what the players will come up with themselves along the way.

That said, I don't detail everything down to the nth degree - players ask me for some important NPC's name and I wing it (and hope I remember to write it down!) - but I know what culture is where and roughly what it's doing; I know who the 51 Emperors have been since the founding of the empire; I know the current politics and who (at least by position) most of the major players are; and so on, thus allowing me to tie the partys' (yes, there's 3 of 'em now) stories into the larger tale as it proves suitable.

Lanefan


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 27, 2009)

> "Hey, is there a thieves guild in this town?" "umm, sure, why do you ask?" "Well, I'd really like to get involved in that, cos, it would totally fit with my character and I have some great ideas."



In another game, the player might investigate the question in character, and not have to wait a real-world week.


> One of the most important parts of world-building is creating options the players need in order to make their own choices and controlling their own fates. However, this is a part of world-building that can't be done until the campaign has already started. Locking in details before the campaign has started limits the options available to both the players and the DM



 As the example above shows, not being ready today limits the options available today.

How does preparation limit options? Only to the extent that one decides to "lock in" details. If your game is one in which the world is as malleable as mere dream, then so be it. Rumours at least of the cats of Ulthar and the marble cloud city of Serranian might be more appealing than a mere featureless plain.

The players with whom I am acquainted certainly expect more. They come to play their characters, not to be told, "You can't go there or do that, because I have not made it up yet." I need at least enough grasp of the world to improvise details as needed. The players appreciate internal consistency. Why did they meet a caravan far from the main road? It sought to avoid paying toll to bandits by taking a side route that turned out to be longer than expected.



> So, all NPC's in your world are frozen in place, never making any decisions until such time as the PC's interact with them?



So, you think that's the only alternative to having the impending destruction of the world depend on what the PCs do?


----------



## Greg K (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, you're saying that your players, with no preamble, with no pre-existing ideas, suddenly decided to take over the Thieve's Guild with absolutely no warning?  Wow, that's pretty much completely alien to my games.




It might be alien to you.  However, I have had my players tell me at the start of a session that they were going some place totally different than where they had planned at the end of the previous session.  Until that point, the place they were heading was simply a place on the map that one of the character had chosen for his homeland and where he had ties to a knightly order and some npcs (family, fiancee and  rival) .  Had I not had notes prepared, I would have never been able to run on the fly and there would have been no game for the evening (that or the characters would have been forced to go through what I had prepared).  However, the notes allowed me to create an extremely enjoyable adventure of courtly intrigue based around the character's disappearance and sudden return home.

In contrast, your players had to wait a week rather than get to do what they wanted


----------



## S'mon (Mar 27, 2009)

I think it's possible to have a good D&D campaign with zero world-building.  The GM simply runs adventure-of-the-week in an episodic format similar to traditional TV serials.

Personally, I have been a bit of a setting Nazi in the past (though as usual Hussar way overstates his case and comes across highly obnoxious) and I think now 4e's points-of-light and refusal to world-build is better than the top-down world-builder approach.

Better that the world be emergent in play; sketch a few ideas but focus on what matters to the players.   Connections and details can be improvised as the game goes along; I think you get something much more interesting than a pre-written world.


----------



## resistor (Mar 27, 2009)

A lot of the posts in this thread are only contrasting opposite extremes of hi-fi-worldbuilding vs. no-worldbuilding.  In reality, I think there's a spectrum.

I know that my own practice is what I would refer to as "light worldbuilding."  I sketch the relevant political subdivisions of my setting, and name/flesh out key political players.  Same for ecclesiastical and arcane players, and major organizations.  I place major cities (or ones with plot importance) on the map.

But I don't plan exactly how many people live in Hommlet, or the name of the orc chief who raids in mountain pass #47.  I don't name a hundred minor gods or assign names and motivations to every member of the royal court (unless it's going to be part of the plot).

Basically, I create high-level structure in advance, and then fill in the details as it becomes relevant to play.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> How does preparation limit options? Only to the extent that one decides to "lock in" details. If your game is one in which the world is as malleable as mere dream, then so be it. Rumours at least of the cats of Ulthar and the marble cloud city of Serranian might be more appealing than a mere featureless plain.
> 
> The players with whom I am acquainted certainly expect more. They come to play their characters, not to be told, "You can't go there or do that, because I have not made it up yet." I need at least enough grasp of the world to improvise details as needed. The players appreciate internal consistency.



Agreed in full.

That said, one of the most lasting memories from a game I was in many years ago was when a party, instead of sailing their boat to the closer end of the island, decided to sail around it and land on the other end...until a Dreadnaught-sized hand came down out of the sky to bar their way, accompanied by a booming voice saying "NO.  THAT WAY DOES NOT EXIST."

The DM had not designed that end of the island yet.  

The boat turned around.

Lan-"any DM should be allowed to pull this stunt once per campaign"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Greg K said:


> It might be alien to you.  However, I have had my players tell me at the start of a session that they were going some place totally different than where they had planned at the end of the previous session.  Until that point, the place they were heading was simply a place on the map that one of the character had chosen for his homeland and where he had ties to a knightly order and some npcs (family, fiancee and  rival) .  Had I not had notes prepared, I would have never been able to run on the fly and there would have been no game for the evening (that or the characters would have been forced to go through what I had prepared).  However, the notes allowed me to create an extremely enjoyable adventure of courtly intrigue based around the character's disappearance and sudden return home.
> 
> In contrast, your players had to wait a week rather than get to do what they wanted




I dunno.  Maybe it's because I talk to my players frequently outside of game time.  If they want to do something completely ninety degrees from what they were planning on doing, they give me a heads up beforehand. 

To me, that's just being a good player.  I would certainly never expect to be able to sit down at someone's game, when they were expecting me to do X and totally blindside them with Y and then expect them to be able to run the game.

For example, my current players are on the Isle of Dread.  Now, they have a ship, so they could leave the island.  But, they've stated that they want to stay on the island and explore for while.  Now, if they were to sit down at the table next week and then say, "Oh, hey, I want to sail to the Pomarj" I gotta admit, I'd be a bit annoyed.

I certainly would never do that to any DM and expect him to be able to immediately cater to my whims.



S'mon said:


> I think it's possible to have a good D&D campaign with zero world-building.  The GM simply runs adventure-of-the-week in an episodic format similar to traditional TV serials.




And I don't think you have to go that far.  You can still do a long story arc without doing a lot of world building.  You can even do sandbox games without a lot of world building (if the sandbox is pretty sparce  ).  



> Personally, I have been a bit of a setting Nazi in the past (though as usual Hussar way overstates his case and comes across highly obnoxious) and I think now 4e's points-of-light and refusal to world-build is better than the top-down world-builder approach.
> 
> Better that the world be emergent in play; sketch a few ideas but focus on what matters to the players.   Connections and details can be improvised as the game goes along; I think you get something much more interesting than a pre-written world.




And I totally agree with this point.  You've said it much better than I could.  Thank you.  I guess it's because I've been forced by people continuously misrepresenting what I'm saying that I feel I have to overstate things or people just start taking things in a completely different direction.

I mean, I've got someone in this thread telling me that having any over arching storyline is equal to railroading.  That having a doom cult in your game is automatically railroading.  I guess I feel that if I don't overstate and be bloody pedantic about it, too many people start playing silly buggers.


----------



## Andor (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, world building has nothing to do with this.  He neglected setting.  But, the names and motivations of the people the PC's are directly interacting with have nothing to do with world building and everything to do with plot and setting.
> 
> World building would be detailing the family trees of those five councilors.  It has nothing to do with the plot (Find the traitor) and exists pretty much independently.  The names of the councilors OTOH, DOES directly impact the plot (if for no other reason than reducing confusion) and is required.
> 
> ...




I've never seen anyone, anywhere, ever suggest that detailing all 20,000 members of the Temple of Bhab right down to the details of their pocket lint and what their first beloved pet's name was is a requirement for good GMing.

Setting that up as what you are deriding is a strawman arguement, and not a very good one, because you're not fooling anyone.

However what you seem to be saying is that any GM is a fool who details anything beyond what he _knows_ the PCs will interact with, and to the minimum degree required is a fool who is obsessed with self indulgent wankery to the detriment of his game, and if that is indeed what you are saying, it's just dead wrong.

Why? Because Councilor A with no living familly is a damm sight different from councilor B with an estranged wife, a scheming mistress, a daughter he dotes on and a mad father locked up in a room in his manor. Any or all of whom the PCs might get a notion to interact with, but only if they exist. Even if the PCs interact with none of them the NPC is _still_ going to behave differently because he has people to be wary of and to protect that will make him behave differently from councilor A who never has to worry about loved ones becoming hostages.

Likewise if a city has a thieves guild, even if the PCs never interact with it directly it will affect things they do interact with simply by virtue of it's existence. It's a power within the city that interacts with everything from street crime to shopkeepers (who have to pay protection money) to the availability of blackmarket items. 

I have played in games where GMs don't know these things ahead of time and I HATE that shrodinger's cat sensation when you ask a question and you can just see the whole damm city shift as the GM trys to come up with an answer.

Can you over detail to the detriment of the game? Absolutely, and no one has claimed any differently.

But, if you want your world to feel deeper than ye generic console rpg you need the depth that comes from details.

At a mimimum, for places the PCs are expected to pass a few days:

For a small community of less than 30 or so you should have at least names, relations and roles for everyone. 

For a midsized community of less than 1,000 or so:
Places the PCs are likely to visit like taverns, blacksmith, village leaders etc with names and faces. You should a couple of notes of things of interest or surprising gaps and a reason why. "Midvale has no resturants following a string of poisoned diners 20 years ago, the murders were never solved, but it's now considered bad luck in midvale to dine outside ones own home." "Shaleford has had a famous elven smith in residence for 100 years now."

For a Major city or sizeable region you should at least know what the powers are, and have a face for each of them. Merchants, nobles, cults, thieves guilds, monastic orders, gypsy bands, etc. If it's something that is likely impact people the PCs will interact with then you should know about it. 

A brilliant or at least very experienced GM can get away with less than this of course. And there is no need to repeatedly draw up things things the PCs never see. If you detailed a farming family for the village of Little Belching, but the PCs blew through without talking to anyone there's no reason not to use it at the town they do stop at.

I promise you that no matter how good a GM you are I could tell whether you had done that kind of background work or not, and I would enjoy your game more if you had.  Nothing ruins my suspension of disbelief like the sensation that the world exists only where my characters eyes are resting at that exact instant.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I dunno.  Maybe it's because I talk to my players frequently outside of game time.  If they want to do something completely ninety degrees from what they were planning on doing, they give me a heads up beforehand.



In the example I gave, the players were waiting for me to arrive from class. 

During their wait, they started talking and, suddenly, realized that a plague was working its way toward two kingdoms. Then, they pieced together that the  leaders of  the only existing wizard academy was responsible- that the wizard's guild had trained nearly every court wizard was also cause for alarm.  

Time being of the essence, they changed their existing plans and decided to follow this hook to protect their homelands. The closest kingdom being threatened was the knight's homeland so they went there first. I was not about to tell them no nor was I annoyed.  It was perfectly in character and made sense for them to do it,. Then again,  I also run a pretty immersive sandbox game and running on the fly comes with the territory.

That I recalled the knight's background and his disappearance meant it needed to be addressed first.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> And I totally agree with this point.  You've said it much better than I could.  Thank you.  I guess it's because I've been forced by people continuously misrepresenting what I'm saying that I feel I have to overstate things or people just start taking things in a completely different direction.




Try not overstating, and you'll find people don't get annoyed with you.  

Seriously, you make a lot of good points, but you state them so aggressively that you get a negative reaction even from people inclined to agree with you.   Try reading over what you've written before posting, think about how it will come across to others.  Don't be afraid to qualify statements - "World-building can be bad if..."  "It may be appropriate to give players what they want if..."


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 27, 2009)

> If the players choose to completely ignore the plot (the Savage Tide is coming), they can certainly do so. But, then the world will be destroyed. ... I've got someone in this thread telling me that having any over arching storyline is equal to railroading. That having a doom cult in your game is automatically railroading.



Far from it. "The (1st level?) PCs had better not die, because they're somehow the only ones who can save the world" is not just any storyline with a doom cult. And you're arguing against there being much of a world to save anyway. So, yeah, you're not exactly running the Louisville & Nashville Sandbox.


----------



## roguerouge (Mar 27, 2009)

The DM builds the setting. The players build the world by interacting with the setting.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2009)

Lurks-no-More said:


> These are examples of lousy GMing, for sure, but they're not arguments for or against world building - they're arguments for putting a moment of thought in your adventure building!




Yes, but, specifically, that "moment of thought in your adventure building" is what (I suspect) 90% of the folks in this thread consider an integral part of world-building.  Moreover, since the DM has no way to determine what the players will find interesting (bar railroading), the DM has no predetermined way to know exactly what is going to be needed in his adventure building.  His adventure building must perforce include world-building to cover at least the most likely angles the PCs wil take, the motivations of his NPCs, and (again, bar railroading) some idea as to what is off the map of his particular adventure should the PCs head for parts unknown.

Re:  the thieve's guild example, for instance, simply because the players have no interest in following up on the guild, it doesn't follow that the guild has no interest in following up on them.  Moreover, players do funny things.  If you wait for the players to tell you they want to rob the casino ala Oceans Eleven before you flesh the casino out, you may very well end up being accused of not putting a "moment of thought in your adventure building" when you thought that the adventure was going to be investigating the old ruins outside of town, rather than the casino/thieve's guild inside of town.

Bar railroading.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar,

Have you considered that the reason your players telegraph everything to you is because they know they need to?  Whereas with (some) other DMs, the players do not feel so constrained?

In the past, you have called yourself a lazy DM, and have said that, should you attempt to limit your player's race/class options they would laugh you away from the table (or words to that effect), indicating that they would oust you from the DM's chair.  Have you considered that these two things may be linked?  That your lack of preparedness may lead directly to a lack of compelling narative, which in turn makes your players willing to discard your DMing for what seems to be (to me) a pretty minor reason?

IOW, I very much doubt that your experience re: no worldbuilding is something that I would use as a firm foundation for advising other DMs.


RC


----------



## Imaro (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I dunno.  Maybe it's because I talk to my players frequently outside of game time.  If they want to do something completely ninety degrees from what they were planning on doing, they give me a heads up beforehand.
> 
> To me, that's just being a good player.  I would certainly never expect to be able to sit down at someone's game, when they were expecting me to do X and totally blindside them with Y and then expect them to be able to run the game.
> 
> ...




First off I don't think it has anything to do with being a "good" player.  I want my players to take initiative and I don't want them to be limited to my "story".  Have you ever considered that the reason your players going off track annoys you is because you haven't built enough of the world out to account for it?  Also that while your group may be fine playing in the mode you describe, others enjoy a more free-form environment.





Hussar said:


> And I don't think you have to go that far.  You can still do a long story arc without doing a lot of world building.  You can even do sandbox games without a lot of world building (if the sandbox is pretty sparce  ).




Yes you can, and you can also do it with worldbuilding and no "story".  Neither is necessary for enjoyment to the game, However either method can enhance, when used properly,  or work to the detriment of the game when used poorly.




Hussar said:


> And I totally agree with this point.  You've said it much better than I could.  Thank you.  I guess it's because I've been forced by people continuously misrepresenting what I'm saying that I feel I have to overstate things or people just start taking things in a completely different direction.
> 
> I mean, I've got someone in this thread telling me that having any over arching storyline is equal to railroading.  That having a doom cult in your game is automatically railroading.  I guess I feel that if I don't overstate and be bloody pedantic about it, too many people start playing silly buggers.




Hussar, perhaps it is your continuous efforts in trying to represent worldbuilding in the most negative light possible, in order to better prove your point, that has, in turn, made most go to the extreme negative of "story" based games.  In my original post I said neither was, IMO, "better" yet you seemed intent on informing the worldbuilders what a waste their efforts and work are... even when you've been presented with reasons why this method, as opposed to yours, works for them.  This I think is what irritates and annoys people when discussing this subject with you.


----------



## Kask (Mar 27, 2009)

Well, when all is said and done, fully developed game worlds sell well.  Must be a lot of DMs out there using them...


----------



## Storminator (Mar 27, 2009)

Andor said:


> I've never seen anyone, anywhere, ever suggest that detailing all 20,000 members of the Temple of Bhab right down to the details of their pocket lint and what their first beloved pet's name was is a requirement for good GMing.
> 
> Setting that up as what you are deriding is a strawman arguement, and not a very good one, because you're not fooling anyone.




Please don't set up a strawman and deride strawman arguments in consecutive paragraphs.



> However what you seem to be saying is that any GM is a fool who details anything beyond what he knows the PCs will interact with, and to the minimum degree required is a fool who is obsessed with self indulgent wankery to the detriment of his game, and if that is indeed what you are saying, it's just dead wrong.
> 
> Why? Because Councilor A with no living familly is a damm sight different from councilor B with an estranged wife, a scheming mistress, a daughter he dotes on and a mad father locked up in a room in his manor. Any or all of whom the PCs might get a notion to interact with, but only if they exist. Even if the PCs interact with none of them the NPC is still going to behave differently because he has people to be wary of and to protect that will make him behave differently from councilor A who never has to worry about loved ones becoming hostages.




I'm pretty sure Hussar would detail all those things about Councilor B. He wouldn't do it because it makes a vibrant world tho. I imagine it would go more along the lines of:

It's going to be a story of political intrigue and desperate action. It needs some characters... the king, some councilors, the nobility, some servants, some prominent freemen, some diplomats... let's get those guys detailed. Hmmmm, we'll need to detail the castle, because that's where most of the action is... maybe a quiet tavern on the far side of town where an insider... how about Councilor B... will set up a secret meeting. What's he like? Better have that worked out, he'll be a big mover in this game. Why is he choosing that tavern? Better have those answers...

etc.

There's no way to get everything down, so focus where the biggest needs are.

PS


----------



## billd91 (Mar 27, 2009)

resistor said:


> A lot of the posts in this thread are only contrasting opposite extremes of hi-fi-worldbuilding vs. no-worldbuilding.  In reality, I think there's a spectrum.




Indeed. And all that "campaign building" that's not supposed to be world building? It's all world-building. Think of anything in advance of the players at the table, perhaps while you're own mowing the lawn and thinking about your game? World building.

But no matter how much the DM engages in world building, if the lack of it or poor use of it hurts the game, then it's poor DMing. Plain and simple.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 27, 2009)

Storminator said:


> ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...





By Hussar's own admission, he would only detail these things if ...

A. The players come to him before the actual session and say "Hey, Hussar were going to interact (in whatever way) with the councilors... or

B. Hussar's "story" plans for the PC's to interact with the councilors in a specific way which makes the information important to the plot.

However there is the simple fact that the PC's could choose to interact with the councilors outside of either of these.  As an example, what if the councilor hires the PC's to retrieve an item and after retrieving it the PC's decide to extort more money from the councilor and in order to do so, mercenaries that they are, decide to kidnap a family member or person of importance to the councillor during play? 

I can agree with the sentiment that...  "There's no way to get everything down, so focus where the biggest needs are." but this is neither here nor there when it comes to worldbuilding or "story"-building. 

Using the storybuilding methodology as your basis, what is constructed is based purely around what you pre-suppose the PC's will do and interact with... while in worldbuilding (especially using a bottom-up design) it is focused not on what you think the PC's will do but on what they can and should be able to interact with in the span of actual play.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Kask said:


> Well, when all is said and done, fully developed game worlds sell well.  Must be a lot of DMs out there using them...




Now here is a bit of a different kettle of fish.  DM's I think are willing to buy lots of setting stuff, because they like to read it.  Not that they necessarily use it in their game.  I know I used to be like this.  Used to buy every supplement I could get my hands on because I liked to read about the setting.

Then I realized that 99% of the material I had, I read once and never used.  That's when my attitude towards this sort of thing changed.  I used to agree wholeheartedly with a lot of the posters here that if you were going to run a good campaign, you had to do all this background work first.  I've got binders and binders of this sort of thing taking up space on my shelves.

Or, rather, I used to.  

Look, maybe I'm stating it too strongly, that's fine.  I'm just trying to point out that the common wisdom that you have to do this sort of thing isn't quite (IMNSHO) true.  That you don't need to spend that much time doing world building before you start a campaign.  That the time you spend world building might be better spent (see the conditional there?  Everyone happy) in detailing the events of the campaign, rather than on detailing elements that only the DM sees.  

The thieves guild that the party never interacts with doesn't matter.  Unless you have flowcharts and spreadsheets to calculate how the guild affects business over time, it has zero impact on the campaign, unless the DM or the players make it so.

Again, totally my opinion.  It's a bit late and I'm a few beers downrange, so, hey, take it for what it is.




Storminator said:


> Please don't set up a strawman and deride strawman arguments in consecutive paragraphs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Bingo.  The basic (at least) details of the councilors is going to come up in the game.  Any DM who makes the slightest effort knows that that's true.  However, in the example of the one councilor's estranged wife, how is that going to come up unless the DM specifically dangles it in front of the players?

Do your players regularly ask if the councilors are having marital difficulties?



billd91 said:


> Indeed. And all that "campaign building" that's not supposed to be world building? It's all world-building. Think of anything in advance of the players at the table, perhaps while you're own mowing the lawn and thinking about your game? World building.
> 
> But no matter how much the DM engages in world building, if the lack of it or poor use of it hurts the game, then it's poor DMing. Plain and simple.




I see what you're saying and by and large I agree.  My personal problem, and i realize that this drum is getting a bit worn is that folding world building in with setting construction makes setting meaningless.  To me, world building is an activity that is divorced from plot.  To me, world building is an activity which is pursued for its own end and its own goals - specifically to create in as great of detail as possible, an imaginary world.

Again, I think this is probably why we're having such a difficulty coming to a consensus because I think a lot of people in this thread are not making a distinction between world building and setting building.

So, if I accept your definition of world building as any activity related to the creation of setting, then yes, we are in 100% agreement.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Imaro said:
			
		

> However there is the simple fact that the PC's could choose to interact with the councilors outside of either of these. As an example, what if the councilor hires the PC's to retrieve an item and after retrieving it the PC's decide to extort more money from the councilor and in order to do so, mercenaries that they are, decide to kidnap a family member or person of importance to the councillor during play?




Ok, again, if your players are dropping this bomb on you with absolutely no warning, there's a larger issue here.  If the players are going to completely abandon the campaign, whatever stories they happen to be working on at the time, completely ignore all other issues going on in the campaign, to blindside you with this, and then expect you to be able to come up with this sort of information on the spot, then you have some issues that go above and beyond world building.

I mean, it's perfectly fine for the players to change stuff and start pursuing new goals and whatnot, that's groovy.  And, to completely blindside you with no warning is fine as well.  But, to completely blindside you AND expect you to have all the details beforehand is unrealistic IMO.  Never mind blindsiding you completely and then expecting you to be able to come up with an entire session, with no preparation, no warning, is far and above what I would ever expect from any DM.

So, if we're playing a high court intrigue game, we're several sessions into it, we've developed relationships with numerous NPC's and really delved into the campaign, and one day, with no warning, the players decide to leave the kingdom to head to a completely different kingdom, you see no problem with that?


----------



## S'mon (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, if we're playing a high court intrigue game, we're several sessions into it, we've developed relationships with numerous NPC's and really delved into the campaign, and one day, with no warning, the players decide to leave the kingdom to head to a completely different kingdom, you see no problem with that?




If I don't have the other kingdom detailed, I guess i'd hit the PCs with enough random encounters to last the session and get it prepped for next time.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> To me, world building is an activity that is divorced from plot.




If by "plot" you mean "things that interact with the PCs" I wonder if this sort of world-building has ever existed.  I suppose, within the confines of a static world, it might.  Even if the DM is thinking about species of insects in the campaign world, I imagine that he is doing so because he wants cool, immersive descriptions while the PCs are tromping through the woods.....or crunching through a buggy crypt.

In other words, this is the creation of what you are calling "setting".  The "setting" is the world.  Building the setting is building the world.  They are the same thing.



> To me, world building is an activity which is pursued for its own end and its own goals - specifically to create in as great of detail as possible, an imaginary world.




I would be curious what you think the distinction between world building and setting building actually is.

From your above quote, it seems that you believe world-building is any activity which creates setting, but for which said setting is not intended to be used in the game.

I think we can safely agree that if "said setting is not intended to be used in the game" that there is a reasonably good (but not absolute) chance that the work performed will not impact the game one way or the other.  In this case, the world-builder is engaging in a hobby tangential to, but not actually the same as, playing the game......and we would not wish to tell people what hobbies they may or may not engage in on their own time, would we?  Well, within reason, anyway.  

The way I see it is, you're stuck between:

A)  Bob is creating material for the game (world-building) that will be used in the game (and therefore, by your terms, setting-building), and 

B)  Bob is creating material not for the game (also world-building, but presumably not setting-building)

In the case of (A) one wonders what you have to complain about.  And, in past threads, you have complained about factors that clearly fell into (A).  

In the case of (B), the only things that you might have to complain about (AFAICT) are (a) Bob is spending time on his own interests rather than yours, and/or (b) Bob is wasting time on something he doesn't enjoy because he believes he must (addicted, psychotic, what-have-you).

If (a), then, frankly, you are not Bob's friend, and he should not be running games for you.  If (b), and only if (b), an intervention is in order.  

Because we have established that some degree of world-building is necessary to reasonably develop setting, the questions related to (b) are 

(i)  Should Bob be DMing at all?  If Bob is doing reasonable world-building, but just isn't enjoying it, perhaps he should simply be a player.  There is no point in having a hobby one does not enjoy.

(ii)  Is Bob simply doing ineffective world-building?  This can be a real problem and is, I think, a source of much of the anti-world-building sentiment in this thread.  And this can be the result of crunch as well as fluff.  Bob wants to create the pirates' base camp, but he becomes enmired within the minutia of the proper hardness and hit points of the doors, the correct falling damage for each pit, the necessary DC for each task based upon a lot of fiddling calculations (3e, I am staring right at you!).

In the case of (ii), saying "World-building is bad!" doesn't help anyone.  A dialogue about what might be more effective/efficient methods of tackling the task of creating a coherent setting without becoming bogged down in minutia, on the other hand, is of great potential value.


RC


----------



## Imaro (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Ok, again, if your players are dropping this bomb on you with absolutely no warning, there's a larger issue here.  If the players are going to completely abandon the campaign, whatever stories they happen to be working on at the time, completely ignore all other issues going on in the campaign, to blindside you with this, and then expect you to be able to come up with this sort of information on the spot, then you have some issues that go above and beyond world building.
> 
> I mean, it's perfectly fine for the players to change stuff and start pursuing new goals and whatnot, that's groovy.  And, to completely blindside you with no warning is fine as well.  But, to completely blindside you AND expect you to have all the details beforehand is unrealistic IMO.  Never mind blindsiding you completely and then expecting you to be able to come up with an entire session, with no preparation, no warning, is far and above what I would ever expect from any DM.
> 
> So, if we're playing a high court intrigue game, we're several sessions into it, we've developed relationships with numerous NPC's and really delved into the campaign, and one day, with no warning, the players decide to leave the kingdom to head to a completely different kingdom, you see no problem with that?




What you are  missing is that it's only an "issue" if you prepare for the game like you do (pre-supposing that the PC's should do things).  I don't think it's an issue or a problem for my players to think and take actions outside "the box"... you apparently do.  I don't need to have everything laid out (that's the extreme view), but to increase our enjoyment I want to have a firm base for the world (those things the PC's may choose to interact with) so that the consequences, results, etc. of their actions are logical and consistent.  The easiest way for me to do this is to create an environment as opposed to a particular story based world, because the PC's could always want to switch it up... even if it's just for a little while or a change of pace... or even just to see what happens.  

Side Note: Lately I have been playing Fable 2 on Xbox 360, and I often find myself doing things only tangentially related to the main storyline (buying shops and homes, rescuing slaves, taking care of my family, finding artifacts, gambling, competing in contests, or just exploring)... other times I play along with the main plot (finding the remaining heroes to head out to Castle Fairfax and defeat the viillain), but it's a richer experience for having these options available.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 27, 2009)

Imaro said:


> By Hussar's own admission, he would only detail these things if ...
> 
> A. The players come to him before the actual session and say "Hey, Hussar were going to interact (in whatever way) with the councilors... or
> 
> ...




I think you're reading his statements in an ungenerous light.

1) He's said he's not railroading his players. Take that to mean that there's flexibility in the story of his campaign. 

2) He's said he prepared for his story. 

Combine 1 & 2, and take that to mean he's got enough elements detailed to handle some variations in the story. He can roll with the PCs deciding to kidnap the councilor's wife, because it's a reasonable stretch of the story. He's not ready for his PCs to go to the dock, buy a warship, head to sea and become pirates based out of a jungle island, because that's not a variation in the story, it's wholesale abandonment. 

I'm guessing you already have a jungle island ready. 

PS


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

S'mon said:


> If I don't have the other kingdom detailed, I guess i'd hit the PCs with enough random encounters to last the session and get it prepped for next time.




Heh, honestly, I'd likely do the same thing.  

Really though, is a random encounter table world buildling?



Imaro said:


> What you are  missing is that it's only an "issue" if you prepare for the game like you do (pre-supposing that the PC's should do things).  I don't think it's an issue or a problem for my players to think and take actions outside "the box"... you apparently do.  I don't need to have everything laid out (that's the extreme view), but to increase our enjoyment I want to have a firm base for the world (those things the PC's may choose to interact with) so that the consequences, results, etc. of their actions are logical and consistent.  The easiest way for me to do this is to create an environment as opposed to a particular story based world, because the PC's could always want to switch it up... even if it's just for a little while or a change of pace... or even just to see what happens.
> 
> Side Note: Lately I have been playing Fable 2 on Xbox 360, and I often find myself doing things only tangentially related to the main storyline (buying shops and homes, rescuing slaves, taking care of my family, finding artifacts, gambling, competing in contests, or just exploring)... other times I play along with the main plot (finding the remaining heroes to head out to Castle Fairfax and defeat the viillain), but it's a richer experience for having these options available.




Hey, I like exploration as much as the next person.  That's fine.  But, again, it also has its place.

I'm taking your example as you presented it.  The players with no warning, and no preamble, suddenly abandon everything they've built up to go off and do something else on a whim.

See, I build campaigns where that sort of thing is going to have major consequences.  If you suddenly abandon something, that means that probably someone's dastardly plot is going to succeed.  If you completely abandon the plot to find the traitor councilor, if and when you return to this kingdom, the king is likely going to be dead and the councilor succeeded in his plot because you didn't stop him.

I find that most players don't like that.  They want to have some idea that they have an effect on the world.  That their actions mean something.

You seem to be saying that it's perfectly okay to abandon the princess that got snatched by the dragon to go off and poke around somewhere else.  

Do you just put the plots on hold CRPG style?  The players can basically operate independently of any sort of in game clock?

Or do your campaigns have no plots whatsoever, beyond what the players cook up for themselves?

I'm not trying to be snarky or obnoxious here.  I really don't understand.  If it's perfectly okay to abandon storylines, then it follows that these storylines don't advance when the players are off doing something else.  Either that or there simply aren't any storylines at all.

In my games, there will generally be several storylines, some player generated, some generated by me, but all of them advance by time.  If the players choose to do X and not Y, Y doesn't simply wait around for the players to come, Y continues until it either resolves itself or the players get involved.  If they choose to do X and then abandon X to do Y, X also continues on from that point.

To give an example from my current campaign.  I have the Isle of Dread.  There is a colony on the island called Farshore.  Very soon there will be an election to select the mayor of Farshore.  Whichever candidate wins will have a serious impact on how things play out later in the campaign.  At the same time, the players need to do a number of other activities to prepare the town for various threats that they know about.  In addition, the players want to expand their own trading company, explore the Island, discover a few other tidbits and deal with some issues that have been ongoing for a while.

In other words, they are really, really busy.

If the players came to me next week and told me that they were abandoning Farshore to head to another island, I would consider it a pretty big failure on my part for not selling the campaign to them, but, I would go with it.  Probably with some random encounters to buy time  

But, the plots that are ongoing on the Island certainly aren't going to stop while they head to another island.


----------



## Witty Comeback (Mar 27, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> The way I see it is, you're stuck between:
> 
> A)  Bob is creating material for the game (world-building) that will be used in the game (and therefore, by your terms, setting-building), and
> 
> ...




While I agree about (A) and (B), there is a third concern.  (c): As a player in Bob's game, I find that he is not prepared with (A) during sessions, and too much with (B). Meaning, he has extensive lists of insects and elvish histories etc. but has failed to prepare adequately for the PCs actually interacting with the game world.  In my opinion, that seems like a valid concern about Bob's game.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> You seem to be saying that it's perfectly okay to abandon the princess that got snatched by the dragon to go off and poke around somewhere else.
> 
> Do you just put the plots on hold CRPG style?  The players can basically operate independently of any sort of in game clock?
> 
> Or do your campaigns have no plots whatsoever, beyond what the players cook up for themselves?




Where did you get that from?!



> I'm not trying to be snarky or obnoxious here.  I really don't understand.  If it's perfectly okay to abandon storylines, then it follows that these storylines don't advance when the players are off doing something else.  Either that or there simply aren't any storylines at all.




Or maybe they abandon storylines, and things come unglued, but the PCs are off doing something else. When they return, the world has evolved, and circumstances are different.



> In my games, there will generally be several storylines, some player generated, some generated by me, but all of them advance by time.  If the players choose to do X and not Y, Y doesn't simply wait around for the players to come, Y continues until it either resolves itself or the players get involved.  If they choose to do X and then abandon X to do Y, X also continues on from that point.
> 
> To give an example from my current campaign.  I have the Isle of Dread.  There is a colony on the island called Farshore.  Very soon there will be an election to select the mayor of Farshore.  Whichever candidate wins will have a serious impact on how things play out later in the campaign.  At the same time, the players need to do a number of other activities to prepare the town for various threats that they know about.  In addition, the players want to expand their own trading company, explore the Island, discover a few other tidbits and deal with some issues that have been ongoing for a while.
> 
> ...




I think the only difference is Imaro doesn't have to buy time, because he's got another island detailed already.

PS


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 27, 2009)

I mostly agree with Hussar.  I think there is a fine line between "enhancing the campaign" with world building and just making up useless facts.  As an example:

DM: "You are walking through the Darken Woods which are just to the west of the country of Duval, a kingdom ruled by the benevolent king, Rakos.  The day is bright and cheery as the light from the twin suns, Lorar and Loram shine through the canopy.  You pass by large amounts of Iraram bushes on your way to deliver the strangely colored purple box to..."
Player 1: "Umm, what are Iraram bushes?"
DM: "They are a bush that blossoms with dark blue colored berries that are edible.  They blossom in the spring."
Player 1: "So, they are blueberry bushes?"
DM: "Similar, yes.  But there are no blueberries in my world, it is a fantasy world."
Player 1: "Right...so they are blueberry bushes."
DM: "Sure, whatever.  So, you are walking through the woods when you spot a small pile of rocks colored red, with a skull of a wolf on top of it.  You know that this is a common sign for the Orc tribe the Wolfskulls.  They use it to mark the edges of their territory.  Legend has it that the young of their tribe have to fight a wolf in hand to hand combat in order to become one of the tribe."

Which is very descriptive.  But it required a good 20 minutes to think of all of those details just now.  And it would have lasted a couple of minutes of actual game time.

Contrast that to:

DM: "You are going through the woods on your way to deliver a purple colored box to a town on the other side of the woods as you were asked to.  You were promised 20 gp each upon completion of the mission and asked not to open it.  As you walk, you see a signpost that means you've just entered Orc territory."

I'm just of the belief that the amount of time required to come up with all of those world details isn't worth the payoff.  I know when a DM starts going into that much detail, I start drifting off and don't pay much attention to it anyway.


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 27, 2009)

This seems a lot to me like a *Why Does the World Exist* debate. Or at least a corollary. Without knowing why the world exists it is hard to formulate a structure for the proper expression of it.

_*If the world has a purpose other than just a place in which to adventure*_, then it has to be well developed and "powerful" enough to make an impression on the characters (and by extension the players) so that they understand they have an environment in which to work that is more important than their own interests. Therefore world building is ultimately more important than the individual characters who inhabit it. It doesn't really matter whether the world is fully developed (and what world is ever fully developed, it's like saying our world is fully developed, our world is only fully developed at this moment in time based upon what we know, in twenty to fifty years there will be a different world with different developments, just as the beginning of the 20th Century seems like an almost completely different world than the beginning of the 21st century) or not at the beginning of play in it, the point is that it is the world that makes demands upon the players and characters, and not the other way around. It's not the specific degree of complexity of development, it is the degree of impression those developments make upon the players and characters, or not.

_*On the other hand if the world exists to service the characters or the characters and players operate in such a way as to "create or recreate" the world as they go along*_, then you don't need a developed world in the sense of the first point, because it is really the players who will "construct or reconstruct" the world under the auspices of the DM. That is to say it appears as if the DM is building the world as you go along, but that's only the appearance. The players are both queuing and cueing the DM on what they desire the world to be like and he in turn is constructing the outline as he goes along based upon their voiced or unvoiced demands and desires.

The first choice is a little bit like Novel writing (though one in which the author develops plot and setting, but cannot control the actions of his characters, character control is always outside the realm of DM control - character control is not the job of the DM - _a lot of people seem to forget that in writing a novel characters are always under your control, in gaming they never truly are_), and therefore the world has purpose which the players and characters service. The second choice is more like an impromptu play or a group created story and the DM is not the author of director but rather the coordinator of how various elements fit together at any given point in time in relation to the players and characters.

Personally I don't see either as unnecessary, or as being mutually exclusive endeavors, though I can see all kinds of ranges and varying degrees of emphasis in both approaches as regards how the players, their characters, and the world interact.

And I also don't see why you can't easily have both.* Or wouldn't want to have both.* Having both is it seems to me far more ideal than having just one or the other. Create one or more areas of more detail in which the characters can operate by understanding not only their abilities, but their limitations as well. One area in which the world makes demands upon them. And create other areas which are basically unexplored, uncivilized, untamed, and "open frontier."

To me the great points of history, literature, myth, religion, society, science, exploration, and adventure have always been where these two areas collide, at the frontier of what is known/unknown, and at the edge of what is understood/not understood. Where the world you know, and the world that is as yet unexplored (at least by the individual(s) involved, to Theodore Roosevelt the Amazon was the Frontier, the Undiscovered Country, to an Amazonian tribesman, Washington DC would have been) clash.

In that way the player and characters always have a base of operations, a world that is stable and in which they know what the rules are, and in which they must follow the law, and another world in which they may operate freely and remake the world as they see fit and best. They have a world of Order, and they have a world of Potential. To me it always seems best to have both an Old World, and a New World. _*And always have a real Frontier that men can step back and forth across in order to explore and test different aspects of themselves, and of the world.*_

So yeah, me personally, as a DM, I prefer a more well developed, as in created world that makes demands upon the players and characters. (Because limitations and responsibilities are at least as important to "true character development," both in-game and in real life, as are liberties.) _However I am always very conscious of the Frontier_, and of the *Undiscovered Country* in which the players and characters become the New Law and reshape the New World in some fundamental way(s), either to improve it, or to corrupt it. Or as the case usually turns out to be, both.

So my advice is, there's always a _*World you Know*_, and there is always a _*World you Don'*_t. The world you know is for you as the DM to create and order and is used to force demands upon the players, and the world you don't is for the players to create, and that's not really your world, it's theirs, and it is for them to see what they will make of it.

You have your job, they have theirs.
You make your world, they make theirs.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Storminator said:


> Where did you get that from?!
> 
> /snip
> PS






			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> What you are missing is that it's only an "issue" if you prepare for the game like you do (pre-supposing that the PC's should do things). I don't think it's an issue or a problem for my players to think and take actions outside "the box"... you apparently do. I don't need to have everything laid out (that's the extreme view), but to increase our enjoyment I want to have a firm base for the world (those things the PC's may choose to interact with) so that the consequences, results, etc. of their actions are logical and consistent. The easiest way for me to do this is to create an environment as opposed to a particular story based world, because the PC's could always want to switch it up... even if it's just for a little while or a change of pace... or even just to see what happens.
> 
> Side Note: Lately I have been playing Fable 2 on Xbox 360, and I often find myself doing things only tangentially related to the main storyline (buying shops and homes, rescuing slaves, taking care of my family, finding artifacts, gambling, competing in contests, or just exploring)... other times I play along with the main plot (finding the remaining heroes to head out to Castle Fairfax and defeat the viillain), but it's a richer experience for having these options available.




I get that from the second part of Imaro's post.  If I'm understanding him correctly, he's saying that it is perfectly fine for the PC's to abandon any plotlines at any time.  He's creating "an environment as opposed to a particular story based world".  

To me, that means that there is no story other than what the players themselves come up with.

If you can abandon story lines without consequences, then those storylines must get put on hold.  Either that or there are not story lines in the first place.

To me, there have to be consequences for abandoning storylines.  I wouldn't run a world where there wasn't.

That's why I'm asking for clarification, because I'm obviously missing something.  I know Imaro is a better DM than that.  I'm just wondering what piece of the puzzle is not making its way past my skull.


----------



## Stoat (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> To me, world building is an activity that is divorced from plot.  To me, world building is an activity which is pursued for its own end and its own goals - specifically to create in as great of detail as possible, an imaginary world.
> 
> Again, I think this is probably why we're having such a difficulty coming to a consensus because I think a lot of people in this thread are not making a distinction between world building and setting building.




I suggest that your definition of the term "world building" may be more idiosyncratic than you realize.  I generally use the term to encompass any kind of setting development, and it appears that several other posters here do as well.  Your definition of the term is not familiar to me and seems unhelpful.  Even though I generally agree with your approach to the topic.

For my games, the more I think the players will focus on something, the more detail I prepare in advance.  If the players are just passing through, I won't prepare much detail.  If the players are settling in, I will.

So for example, imagine my players are inspired by Marco Polo to undertake a difficult overland voyage to the East.  They plan to stop in Constantinople for a few days to buy supplies and consult with the local sages about the dangers that wait ahead.  In game, they won't be there more than a week.  In reality, we won't spend more than a session or two in the city.  

I won't spend a lot of time thinking about the history of Constantinople.  I won't detail its thieves guild(s) or worry about the complex ballet of etiquette and vendetta practices by its noble houses.  I might draw a map, but I won't bother to name every street or identify every building.  I'll focus on the merchants and sages that I expect the PC's to deal with.  If the players surprise me, I'll improvise for a few hours, take good notes, and work from there before the next session.

OTOH, if the PC's start off as 1st level characters in Constantinople, they live there and the players want an extended urban adventure, then I'll do a lot of setting prep.  I'll have a detailed map.  I'll detail any number of NPC's cabals, guilds, cults and what have you.  I'll think about local law and punishment.


----------



## Stoat (Mar 27, 2009)

As an aside:  Hussar are you running a 4E campaign?  I'm interested in any 4E material relevant to the Isle of Dread that I can get my hands on.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Really though, is a random encounter table world buildling?




Exhibit A:  Reynard's Blog.  'Nuff said.  



> I find that most players don't like that.  They want to have some idea that they have an effect on the world.




And yet you fail to see the paradox inherent in believing that players "want to have some idea that they have an effect on the world" while crying out against the creation of that world in the first place?  



> You seem to be saying that it's perfectly okay to abandon the princess that got snatched by the dragon to go off and poke around somewhere else.




Yup.  It is perfectly okay for the PCs to allow the princess to get eaten by the dragon if the players view something else as more important.  You don't see it this way?  



Witty Comeback said:


> While I agree about (A) and (B), there is a third concern.  (c): As a player in Bob's game, I find that he is not prepared with (A) during sessions, and too much with (B). Meaning, he has extensive lists of insects and elvish histories etc. but has failed to prepare adequately for the PCs actually interacting with the game world.  In my opinion, that seems like a valid concern about Bob's game.




That falls under "(a) Bob is spending time on his own interests rather than yours".

Your interest is in having material prepped for the game sessions.  If Bob isn't prepping said material you certainly have a right to discuss the matter with him, and to exit the game if it seems unlikely that the issue will be resolved.  What you do not have a right to do is demand that Bob prep material for you rather than prep material for himself.  

What Bob does not have a right to do is demand that you play in a game that is, for you, crappy.  Heck, Bob doesn't have a right to demand that you play in a game that is the best you ever played, either.  

If Bob is intending to create the necessary materials, but failing to do so, then the same questions remain: 

(i) Should Bob be DMing at all? If Bob is doing reasonable world-building, but just isn't enjoying it, perhaps he should simply be a player. There is no point in having a hobby one does not enjoy.

(ii) Is Bob simply doing ineffective world-building? This can be a real problem and is, I think, a source of much of the anti-world-building sentiment in this thread. And this can be the result of crunch as well as fluff. Bob wants to create the pirates' base camp, but he becomes enmired within the minutia of the proper hardness and hit points of the doors, the correct falling damage for each pit, the necessary DC for each task based upon a lot of fiddling calculations (3e, I am staring right at you!).​And, again, the same conclusion remains:

In the case of (ii), saying "World-building is bad!" doesn't help anyone. A dialogue about what might be more effective/efficient methods of tackling the task of creating a coherent setting without becoming bogged down in minutia, on the other hand, is of great potential value.​


Storminator said:


> I think the only difference is Imaro doesn't have to buy time, because he's got another island detailed already.




I would have to agree.  Well, at least broadly painted, if not detailed.  

In the politics example, though, it amazes me that anyone would imagine that you could run an effective political campaign without knowing who the neighbours are.  It's rather like imagining a game where PCs run the U.S. government, but the GM has failed to take Canada, Mexico, Russia, and France into account...... 


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 27, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> (ii)  Is Bob simply doing ineffective world-building?  This can be a real problem and is, I think, a source of much of the anti-world-building sentiment in this thread.




I agree.



Raven Crowking said:


> In the case of (ii), saying "World-building is bad!" doesn't help anyone.  A dialogue about what might be more effective/efficient methods of tackling the task of creating a coherent setting without becoming bogged down in minutia, on the other hand, is of great potential value.




I think it's worth noting that some methods of worldbuilding work well for some play styles and don't work so well for others.  When talking about good methods of worldbuilding I think you'd have to start with the goals of the group.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I get that from the second part of Imaro's post.  If I'm understanding him correctly, he's saying that it is perfectly fine for the PC's to abandon any plotlines at any time.  He's creating "an environment as opposed to a particular story based world".
> 
> To me, that means that there is no story other than what the players themselves come up with.
> 
> If you can abandon story lines without consequences, then those storylines must get put on hold.  Either that or there are not story lines in the first place.




You are taking a great (and unjustified) leap from "it is perfectly fine for the PC's to abandon any plotlines at any time" to "it is perfectly fine for the PC's to abandon any plotlines at any time _*without consequences*_."


RC


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Mar 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I mostly agree with Hussar. I think there is a fine line between "enhancing the campaign" with world building and just making up useless facts. As an example:
> 
> DM: "You are walking through the Darken Woods which are just to the west of the country of Duval, a kingdom ruled by the benevolent king, Rakos. The day is bright and cheery as the light from the twin suns, Lorar and Loram shine through the canopy. You pass by large amounts of Iraram bushes on your way to deliver the strangely colored purple box to..."
> Player 1: "Umm, what are Iraram bushes?"
> ...




I find that if you don't make these small details important, that they're often lost upon the players. Oftentimes, I'll challenge my players before the game starts to see if they recall the little things in my gaming world (think Jeopardy), and grant them bonus experience points. I find that players begin to recall these things for the reward, and in turn when speaking from a character perspective, often incorporate these small, evocative details in the patterns of their speech.

I also make certain that the details I gives sometimes has some sort of implication upon the plot, whether it's recounting what they saw, people they met, buildings they've visited within the city and officials they've negotiated with as a part of skill challenges.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> I think it's worth noting that some methods of worldbuilding work well for some play styles and don't work so well for others.  When talking about good methods of worldbuilding I think you'd have to start with the goals of the group.




Absolutely!

You will have to start with the goals of the individuals comprising the group (including the DM) and the goals of the group as a whole.  Unless you know where you want to get to, how can you plan a reasonable course?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Jack7 said:
			
		

> And I also don't see why you can't easily have both. Or wouldn't want to have both. Having both is it seems to me far more ideal than having just one or the other. Create one or more areas of more detail in which the characters can operate by understanding not only their abilities, but their limitations as well. One area in which the world makes demands upon them. And create other areas which are basically unexplored, uncivilized, untamed, and "open frontier."




Just pulling out this one bit.  I agree that in a perfect world, we certainly could have both.  However, the one limiting factor in here is time.  Most DM's only have a limited amount of time to spend on gaming.  I feel that the time is better spent on focusing on the campaign rather than the setting.



			
				Stoat said:
			
		

> I suggest that your definition of the term "world building" may be more idiosyncratic than you realize. I generally use the term to encompass any kind of setting development, and it appears that several other posters here do as well. Your definition of the term is not familiar to me and seems unhelpful. Even though I generally agree with your approach to the topic.




Heh, I get that a lot.  

The problem I have with lumping the two activities together is twofold.  First, if they can be lumped together, why have separate terms?  If they are synonymous, they're redundant.  Two, there are several works of fiction where you can have setting without any world building whatsoever.  Beckett's Waiting for Godot is the best example I can think of for this.  A great many theater plays as well fall into this.  

For example, look at Romeo and Juliet.  Fantastic play.  One of the greats of the English language.  But, so utterly lacking in world building that you can set it almost anywhere, from Verona, to modern day cities, to space ships, to steaming jungles without changing a word.  Beyond the fact that you have two warring factions (why are they warring?  Who cares?) and the lovers are from opposing factions, that's about all the setting you get.  

There are other examples, so, even if you don't specifically agree with this one, I'm sure you can supply your own.

So, to me, there is a distinction between setting and world building.  Setting, by definition is directly tied to the plot.  It has to be.  Setting is the location where the plot occurs.  World building then, to me, has to be something other than setting.  It's all the extra stuff that lots of authors (particularly fantasy authors) like to pad their doorstop sized books with - all the mostly unrelated background stuff that doesn't really have a whole lot of impact on the plot.

To give a particularly egregious example, read Perdito Street Station by China Mieville.  In the story, he spends several chapters detailing the life cycle and background of one of the characters.  He then removes that character from the plot half way through the book and the character makes no more appearances until the final chapter.  The character's background has pretty much nothing to do with why she is kidnapped nor does it have anything to do with her return.

To me, that's world building.

Again, I'm not saying world building is bad.  It's not.  It can be tons of fun.  I just believe that a DM's efforts could be better directed.  That spending time and effort detailing elements on the off chance that the players might go somewhere is doing a disservice to the ongoing campaign.  And I think the advice that is typically served up to new DM's is also misleading.  It places too much emphasis on world building and not enough on focusing on campaign.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I get that from the second part of Imaro's post.  If I'm understanding him correctly, he's saying that it is perfectly fine for the PC's to abandon any plotlines at any time.  He's creating "an environment as opposed to a particular story based world".
> 
> To me, that means that there is no story other than what the players themselves come up with.
> 
> If you can abandon story lines without consequences, then those storylines must get put on hold.  Either that or there are not story lines in the first place.




Let's look at that Imaro quote again:



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> What you are missing is that it's only an "issue" if you prepare for the game like you do (pre-supposing that the PC's should do things). I don't think it's an issue or a problem for my players to think and take actions outside "the box"... you apparently do. I don't need to have everything laid out (that's the extreme view), but to increase our enjoyment I want to have a firm base for the world (those things the PC's may choose to interact with) so that *the consequences*, results, etc. of their actions are logical and consistent. The easiest way for me to do this is to create an environment as opposed to a particular story based world, because the PC's could always want to switch it up... even if it's just for a little while or a change of pace... or even just to see what happens.






			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> To me, there have to be consequences for abandoning storylines.  I wouldn't run a world where there wasn't.
> 
> That's why I'm asking for clarification, because I'm obviously missing something.  I know Imaro is a better DM than that.  I'm just wondering what piece of the puzzle is not making its way past my skull.




I think you are linking "storylines can be abandoned" and "storylines can be abandoned *without consequences*" in a wholly unjustified way.

PS


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2009)

Moniker said:


> I also make certain that the details I gives sometimes has some sort of implication upon the plot, whether it's recounting what they saw, people they met, buildings they've visited within the city and officials they've negotiated with as a part of skill challenges.





Example from one of my 3e games:  Some orcs take zurgash, also known as "dumbwode".  It stains the lips and tongues blue, and increases the time a character can rage.  It also renders one mute while in effect, and tends to lower intelligence over time.  A PC facing such an orc knows that (1) the orc cannot call for help, (2) is less likely to be smart enough to strike the warning gong, and (3) is useless to question.

Zurgash was made by a group of undead "druids" who were trying to provoke the collapse of civilization and eventually spread their undead status.  They made zurgash from a fungus which they grew on the bones of dead orcs, while claiming to the orcs that they were taking care of the revered dead (orcs in this world being established ancestor-worshippers).

Learning this could change the orc's viewpoint on zurgash, and win the PCs orc allies.

PCs also have the option of attempting to use the drug to increase their potential raging, at the cost of potentially getting less intelligent and being temporarily rendered mute.  Zurgash is addictive, so it might also put them into the control of the undead "druids".

"Zurgash" in orcish means "blue fire".

Believe me, this sort of detail was not lost on the players, and it led to interesting events within actual game sessions.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Heh, I get that a lot.




No doubt.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> So, to me, there is a distinction between setting and world building.




This explains your use of the term "setting nazis", no doubt.


I don't like fish.  Fish suck.  I wish people would stop wasting their time cooking fish.  Yet every time I say this, the salmon nazis tell me I'm wrong.

Actually, I like salmon.  I just don't think salmon are fish.  If salmon were fish, why would we have two different words?

I like trout also.  I think trout should be called salmon.  Trout are not fish.

Just to be perfectly clear, I am only talking about fish that are poorly cooked, so that they taste bad when eaten.

Yet no one seems to understand me.

I get that a lot.


RC


----------



## Stormtalon (Mar 27, 2009)

Storminator said:
			
		

> I think you are linking "storylines can be abandoned" and "storylines can be abandoned without consequences" in a wholly unjustified way.




What he's referring to (I believe) was this quote in reply to his description of Savage Tide and the consequences of not following through on the plot:



Nightson said:


> That's not a choice.  That's just passive-aggressive railroading.




Admittedly, I think he's ascribing that particular attitude to a few too many people, but it's one that bothers me as well.  I have absolutely no problems with setting up harsh consequences when a party abandons a plotline to hare off somewhere else.  If the world ends, so be it -- it's their choice and I hope they had fun fiddling while Rome burnt.  I'll at least make their last few months of the world something entertaining _and_ I'll enjoy the shocked look on their faces when I end the campaign by saying, "Yeah, you remember that bad guy you decided wasn't worth the trouble?  He just destroyed the world by [insert apocalypse of choice].  You're all dead."

So far, I haven't had that problem; my players like what I throw at them and they enjoy seeing where the story goes, so I haven't yet had to end the world prematurely.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I mostly agree with Hussar. I think there is a fine line between "enhancing the campaign" with world building and just making up useless facts. As an example:
> 
> DM: "You are walking through the Darken Woods which are just to the west of the country of Duval, a kingdom ruled by the benevolent king, Rakos. The day is bright and cheery as the light from the twin suns, Lorar and Loram shine through the canopy. You pass by large amounts of Iraram bushes on your way to deliver the strangely colored purple box to..."
> Player 1: "Umm, what are Iraram bushes?"
> ...




All of this has a lot to do with how connected to the world the characters are.
 If the participants are all there to complete objective X then the adventure could be played in any world and details are unimportant. This style of play is perfectly fine, requires less work from the DM and players that have busy lives have less to have to keep track of. Its harder to establish meaningful connections to the gameworld this way. If nobody cares then all the detail is just extra (unappreciated) work.

If everyone wants connections to the world to have more meaning then the lack of detail can make things more difficult. If my character is supposed to deliver some box to a guy in some nameless town to get paid and has to travel through orc territory then all that matters is getting the job done, fighting some orcs and perhaps getting some extra loot.
In this case the rewards and adventure activities could take place anywhere. The setting is unimportant. The players have no connection to the world,and no in or out of game reasons to care about the world at large. Its just a bunch of generic places poulated with generic people. All that matters to drive gameplay are the rewards-XP, treasure, gear upgrades, ect. The actual quests and stories are meaningless beyond the rewards that they provide. 

This style of play might not be enough for everyone. Its unrealistic of the DM to ask the players to care about Kingdom barcode or its people. Its unrealistic of the players to expect adventures with more plot and life without them taking place in a setting with more detail. Its up to the group as a whole to decide on a level of detail that is acceptable to provide for the campaign's needs. 

The trick is making the detail matter to the players. Tying the in game rewards that the characters receive closely with the specific setting while maintaining player interest in those rewards is the magic mixture. If my character is entrusted with a box by Brother Cuthbert that needs to get to Duke Roderick at his keep beyond the Dark Forest with great haste because the box contains a magical cure for his 7 year old daughter for which I will be rewarded well then I might approach the adventure differently. Rather than charge into battle against the first orcs I see for more XP and loot I would do my best to avoid such troubles to complete my mission. Getting the cure delivered on time will not only earn some tangible coin but the gratitude of Duke Roderick. The word of my heroism will spread to the Duke's holdings and I will get continued rewards in that specific place. I learn about the people and places in the area.Discounts, or perhaps free goods and services that make Roderick's Duchy meaningful and not just some place where I did some quest. The events that spring from this detail make my character care about the place. The cool stuff my character gets makes me as a player care about the place. 

The exact level of detail thats needed to drive this interest/reward system will vary to taste. The world needs enough detail to maintain player interest but too much can cause it to be lost again.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 27, 2009)

Moniker said:


> I find that if you don't make these small details important, that they're often lost upon the players. Oftentimes, I'll challenge my players before the game starts to see if they recall the little things in my gaming world (think Jeopardy), and grant them bonus experience points. I find that players begin to recall these things for the reward, and in turn when speaking from a character perspective, often incorporate these small, evocative details in the patterns of their speech.
> 
> I also make certain that the details I gives sometimes has some sort of implication upon the plot, whether it's recounting what they saw, people they met, buildings they've visited within the city and officials they've negotiated with as a part of skill challenges.




This is exactly why I dislike this sort of world building.  It almost always comes out as a "Gotcha!"  Whether it's a quiz, a puzzle that you could have solved, a plot point that you are expected to figure out, or whatever.  The reason these sorts of details are thrown out by world building DMs is so that they can test players to see how much they paid attention to the history lesson they received.

If you aren't as interested in the history and culture of their world as they are, then you get punished for it.  As a player, I'm NEVER as interested in the history and culture of their world as they are.  So, I'm always the one punished.


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I mostly agree with Hussar.  I think there is a fine line between "enhancing the campaign" with world building and just making up useless facts.  As an example:
> (snip for space)
> 
> Which is very descriptive.  But it required a good 20 minutes to think of all of those details just now.  And it would have lasted a couple of minutes of actual game time.




Absolutely, you can go too far.



> Contrast that to:
> 
> DM: "You are going through the woods on your way to deliver a purple colored box to a town on the other side of the woods as you were asked to.  You were promised 20 gp each upon completion of the mission and asked not to open it.  As you walk, you see a signpost that means you've just entered Orc territory."




You can also go not far enough. With my group, that'd be pretty blandly received or even mocked: "an orc signpost" tends to conjure up images of a sign posted with "Orc Territory" written on it. Without more detail, it knocks them out of immersion. 

Compare to: "Halfway through the woods, you see a wolf's skull set atop a pile of red-stained rocks." If the characters are reasonably familiar with orcs, you add "Looks like an orc territory marker," possibly "you've heard that there's a tribe of orcs in the area called the Wolfskulls." Only a little more effort, and stronger immersion. Depending on your players, that immersion can be critical to them having a good time in the game as opposed to simply participating to be polite.



> I'm just of the belief that the amount of time required to come up with all of those world details isn't worth the payoff.  I know when a DM starts going into that much detail, I start drifting off and don't pay much attention to it anyway.




When a GM goes into too much detail, I get bored, too. On the other hand, if I ask "What do I know about these orcs?", make a roll, and the GM gives me purely generic orc information out of the Monster Manual, I have nothing to really interact with. I'm of the explorer type, and I like to find out what neat things the GM's going to come up with for my character to interact with. If the answer is that he doesn't really have anything interesting to look at, poke, eat or read beyond the context of the immediate adventure, I have much less interest in the game. 

As always, you gotta know your audience. But I've found that for the groups I tend to play with, coming up with extra details is absolutely worth the time: the players require it to feel like actual residents of the world instead of pieces on a game board. Writing 5,000 words on Vilessan opera is certainly going too far, but knowing that opera is a popular medium in the area is useful if the party bard asks "So are there any good shows in town at the moment?"; even more useful if you can ad lib "Sure, there's a pretty well-received comedy opera about three halfling brothers playing." And I have players like that.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I'm just of the belief that the amount of time required to come up with all of those world details isn't worth the payoff.  I know when a DM starts going into that much detail, I start drifting off and don't pay much attention to it anyway.




Not worth the payoff? I beg to differ, at least with some of your examples. 



Majoru Oakheart said:


> DM: "So, you are walking through the woods when you spot a small pile of rocks colored red, with a skull of a wolf on top of it.  You know that this is a common sign for the Orc tribe the Wolfskulls.  They use it to mark the edges of their territory.




That puts me on the edge of my seat. I can picture the sign. I feel an air of menace. _Absolutely_ worth the time spent.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> DM: "You are going through the woods on your way to deliver a purple colored box to a town on the other side of the woods as you were asked to.  You were promised 20 gp each upon completion of the mission and asked not to open it.  As you walk, you see a signpost that means you've just entered Orc territory."




*zzzzz SNORE zzzzz*
I'm picturing a typical city sign "Welcome to Orc Territory, pop. 400".

What we're really looking at here is the boxed text needs is a little editing.



			
				better-edited DM said:
			
		

> DM: "You are walking through the Darken Woods. The day is bright and cheery as the light from the twin suns shines through the canopy. You pass by large amounts of thickly growing berry bushes on your way to deliver the strangely colored purple box to xxx [you never did finish that example]
> 
> You spot a small pile of rocks colored red, with a skull of a wolf on top of it.  You know that this is a common sign for the Orc tribe the Wolfskulls.  They use it to mark the edges of their territory."




The problem isn't in the world building and building unnecessary details. The problem is in presenting them effectively rather than drowing the players in a sea of unnecessary detail. But knowing the details, because you've considered them, enables you to present them if and when the PCs interact with them.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 27, 2009)

billd91 said:


> The problem isn't in the world building and building unnecessary details. The problem is in presenting them effectively rather than drowing the players in a sea of unnecessary detail. But knowing the details, because you've considered them, enables you to present them if and when the PCs interact with them.




Ok I can't give XP for this right now, can someone cover me?


----------



## Greg K (Mar 27, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Ok I can't give XP for this right now, can someone cover me?




Covered!

(btw, do you know what, occassionally, prevents giving exp to someone? Yesterday, I tried to give Imaro exp and could not do it so Aus Snow covered me).


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 27, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Covered!
> 
> (btw, do you know what, occassionally, prevents giving exp to someone? Yesterday, I tried to give Imaro exp and could not do it so Aus Snow covered me).




You can only give XP to a particular poster every so often. I don't think its time related but rather how many different posters you give XP to before being able to award the same person again, thus "spread some around"


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Mar 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> This is exactly why I dislike this sort of world building. It almost always comes out as a "Gotcha!" Whether it's a quiz, a puzzle that you could have solved, a plot point that you are expected to figure out, or whatever. The reason these sorts of details are thrown out by world building DMs is so that they can test players to see how much they paid attention to the history lesson they received.
> 
> If you aren't as interested in the history and culture of their world as they are, then you get punished for it. As a player, I'm NEVER as interested in the history and culture of their world as they are. So, I'm always the one punished.




Granted, but you're not within the demographic of people I'd have playing a D&D game at my table. My players chose me as their DM because they wanted verisimilitude, a rich history and story with action and consequences, and in turn I chose them to play in my game because I know I can craft a game they can throw themselves fully into.

I'm not knocking your style, but _Diablo at the table_ is not the sort of D&D game I prefer as either a player or a DM. And I don't quite understand what's up with the "punishment" thing you're noting. If you're having those sorts of DMs, then find a new group that fits your playstyle.


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The reason these sorts of details are thrown out by world building DMs is so that they can test players to see how much they paid attention to the history lesson they received.




As a world-builder: nnnnnnno, that's not why they're thrown out. They're thrown out for the sake of illusion and immersion. They are colorful bits that, like bait, might provide story hooks if the players bite. If the players know that there are pseudodragons in a particular wood because they find out in a fashion other than a random encounter, one might want to go find one as a pet. Apart from that, it just tends to make the world more real, in the same sense that you would describe a forest as largely evergreen in cold northern climes, or as you'd describe the nights as getting cold in a desert. 

You've moved into "bad GM" behavior patterns, not "world-builder" behavior patterns. There are non-world-building GMs aplenty who will punish players for becoming interested in things other than the Adventure At Hand: but that's because they're also bad GMs, not simply because they choose not to spend time world-building.


----------



## alleynbard (Mar 27, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> As always, you gotta know your audience. But I've found that for the groups I tend to play with, coming up with extra details is absolutely worth the time: the players require it to feel like actual residents of the world instead of pieces on a game board. Writing 5,000 words on Vilessan opera is certainly going too far, but knowing that opera is a popular medium in the area is useful if the party bard asks "So are there any good shows in town at the moment?"; even more useful if you can ad lib "Sure, there's a pretty well-received comedy opera about three halfling brothers playing." And I have players like that.





I agree with everything you say and I would argue that actually writing the 5,000 words really isn't going too far.  If a  GM enjoys that aspect of play (I certainly love worldbuilding) then writing that material is satisfying a need.  

The real issue comes, as you say, on how that information is presented.  If a GM tries to foist all 5,000 words on unwilling players, then that is a problem.   Most often, what happens in my games is probably very similar to what happens in yours.  For instance, if the players enter a city I usually give a few details on what the city is known for, perhaps no more than a three or four quick facts.  If the players push for more on a particular subject I will provide a little more in-depth info.  If they really want to learn everything there is to know about the subject I am likely to release my notes, sans any secret info, just so they can read about the subject in their leisure time.

But I need to have some of those notes ready for that eventuality.  Perhaps that has everything to do with my group.  If I didn't have a group who responded so positively to unique facts, then perhaps my time spent worldbuilding would be reduced.  I don't know.  I am inclined to believe that the situation has grown from my willingness to produce details about the world, either ahead of time or by ad libbing in game.  I provided the environment and the players responded.  It is an enjoyable form of game play for us.  

And, I must admit, I would never want to run/play in a game that doesn't have at least the opportunity for me to push against the world and have it push back with detail.  But I can appreciate others might feel differently.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> This is exactly why I dislike this sort of world building.  It almost always comes out as a "Gotcha!"  Whether it's a quiz, a puzzle that you could have solved, a plot point that you are expected to figure out, or whatever.  The reason these sorts of details are thrown out by world building DMs is so that they can test players to see how much they paid attention to the history lesson they received.
> 
> If you aren't as interested in the history and culture of their world as they are, then you get punished for it.  As a player, I'm NEVER as interested in the history and culture of their world as they are.  So, I'm always the one punished.





I don't think this is a poblem with world building so much as a problem with the DM. World Building can add a lot of flair to a campaign, but the DM should never use it to "trick" his players. The DM in your case is doing that, he's simply playing a game of "gotcha" and I find it bad form. 

I think a lot of DMs forget that while it's been say 3 months real time since the last time they encountered world element X, it might have only been like a day in game time. So there isn't a reason the character would forget the info that the player forgot. Sometimes the DM should just restate the info.

As for the Orc sign... I prefer this method:

DM: "So, you are walking through the woods when you spot a small pile of rocks colored red, with a skull of a wolf on top of it.

Player: Do we know anything about what this means?

DM: Make a nature, or a history check.

This allows the DM to use his world detail in game, and I've even found players tend to register stuff like that more then if the DM just outright tells them.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Mar 27, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> As a world-builder: nnnnnnno, that's not why they're thrown out. They're thrown out for the sake of illusion and immersion. They are colorful bits that, like bait, might provide story hooks if the players bite. If the players know that there are pseudodragons in a particular wood because they find out in a fashion other than a random encounter, one might want to go find one as a pet. Apart from that, it just tends to make the world more real, in the same sense that you would describe a forest as largely evergreen in cold northern climes, or as you'd describe the nights as getting cold in a desert.
> 
> You've moved into "bad GM" behavior patterns, not "world-builder" behavior patterns. There are non-world-building GMs aplenty who will punish players for becoming interested in things other than the Adventure At Hand: but that's because they're also bad GMs, not simply because they choose not to spend time world-building.




THIS.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 27, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The exact level of detail thats needed to drive this interest/reward system will vary to taste. The world needs enough detail to maintain player interest but too much can cause it to be lost again.



Honestly, I think talking about "level of detail" misses the main point of this discussion.

What Hussar has been arguing for (which seems to be my way of doing things, since he agrees with me so much) has nothing to do with level of detail. It is simply the timing of the creation of detail, and the factors that govern which details you include.

You can create a highly detailed setting before ever starting the campaign, or you can create one in the process of playing the campaign. There is no inherent difference in the amount of detail the players encounter in one strategy or another. You do not necessarily get more relevant detail if you build the world first, and you do not have to lose relevant detail by starting the campaign first. Similarly, you do not necessarily get more verisimilitude with the former method.

Overall, I simply have to disagree with anyone who argues that detailed worldbuilding before the start of a campaign actually makes the campaign better, or saves them any work when the campaign actually starts. I don't even agree that it makes any single session more flexible. It is certainly a strategy that works, but it is far from being the only one, and is certainly not the one true best way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Ok I can't give XP for this right now, can someone cover me?




I did before you asked.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> Overall, I simply have to disagree with anyone who argues that detailed worldbuilding before the start of a campaign actually makes the campaign better, or saves them any work when the campaign actually starts. I don't even agree that it makes any single session more flexible. It is certainly a strategy that works





Care to explain how it is "certainly a strategy that works" if, overall, you disagree that it has any benefits?


----------



## Scribble (Mar 27, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Care to explain how it is "certainly a strategy that works" if, overally, you disagree that it has any benefits?




I'm not TB but I think what he's saying is:

Neither strategy is the "best" strategy. If it works for you, it works for you, but it doesn't mean that particular strategy is always going to work for everyone, and is therefore not the ultimate "best" strategy.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 27, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I'm not TB but I think what he's saying is:
> 
> Neither strategy is the "best" strategy. If it works for you, it works for you, but it doesn't mean that particular strategy is always going to work for everyone, and is therefore not the ultimate "best" strategy.




That might make sense, were the statement not

I simply have to disagree with anyone who argues that detailed worldbuilding before the start of a campaign actually makes the campaign better, or saves them any work when the campaign actually starts. I don't even agree that it makes any single session more flexible.​
Note, this is not a statement that he disagrees that it is the only way.  He disagrees that it "saves *them* any work when the campaign actually starts" where "them" surely refers to the people making the claim.  He then doesn't agree that it makes _*any*_ single session more flexible.

IOW, if you claim that it helps you, he disagrees.

That is not the same as "Neither strategy is the best strategy", and is directly contradictory to the statement that detailed worldbuiilding is "certainly a strategy that works".

It is similar to saying:  "Overall, I disagree that anyone gets benefits from eating carrots.  I don't even agree that they have vitamins.  Eating carrots is good for you though."


RC


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 27, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> Overall, I simply have to disagree with anyone who argues that detailed worldbuilding before the start of a campaign actually makes the campaign better, or saves them any work when the campaign actually starts. I don't even agree that it makes any single session more flexible. It is certainly a strategy that works, but it is far from being the only one, and is certainly not the one true best way.




Well, think of it this way: World-building can be, for some GMs, a matter of rehearsal and inspiration. By detailing the information ahead of time, you're running through it in your head. By thinking about this sort of thing in the shower, you're preparing to answer questions. It can also be a form of blocking, where you're sort of anticipating where the actors will stand during the performance. 

Now, that doesn't mean that every detail you devise in a given world-building session will come into play, or even that the majority will. But it's part of the creative process. Have you ever known someone who does their best creative work on a specific pad and pen, or at the laptop, or with a favorite CD or DVD on in the background? World-building can be like that. You may find you write better adventures if you put in some brainstorming about the local village first, or think about the ecology of the area. "_Hmm, what if the apex predator here is owlbears_?", you think, and you decide that'll be fun flavor. But then it winds up coloring other aspects of your adventure, as you decide that there must be fey nearby who have a fondness for the beasts, and then that leads to inspiring a fey-based adventure. A lot of GMs create a lot of great adventures that way, because the setting inspires them to keep pouring creative effort into the game. It's part of their process. 

By no means is it the one true best way, at least for everyone. But I think it can make the difference between a pretty good GM and a fantastic GM if that's what inspires them. To go back to the thread title, for some it is absolutely "necessary." And me, I really like playing with GMs who get into the world-building, all other things being equal.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 27, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> Honestly, I think talking about "level of detail" misses the main point of this discussion.
> 
> What Hussar has been arguing for (which seems to be my way of doing things, since he agrees with me so much) has nothing to do with level of detail. It is simply the timing of the creation of detail, and the factors that govern which details you include.
> 
> ...




I didn't mention anything about having to have all kinds of work done before play begins. Actually I'm all for the idea of the DM working out the level of detail desired with the players before doing any work at all. Having the DM and player expectations for the game be in the same ballpark is the one true best way for me.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 27, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> Overall, I simply have to disagree with anyone who argues that detailed worldbuilding before the start of a campaign actually makes the campaign better,




better for everyone? No. Better for certain styles, yes.



> or saves them any work when the campaign actually starts.




Did you miss the part about Hussar's players, the thief's guild and them having to wait a week?  In contrast, I was able to accomodate my players, who  wanted to go to an entirely different kingdom at the last minute based on an epiphany they had, that very same evening- I simply had pull out some notes and take a minute to claify some background info from one of the players. No need to postpone for a week.
Not having to take a week to prepare, because I had info prepared prior to the the campaign starting, sure sounds like saving me work once the campaign starts.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> To give an example from my current campaign.  I have the Isle of Dread.  There is a colony on the island called Farshore.  Very soon there will be an election to select the mayor of Farshore.  Whichever candidate wins will have a serious impact on how things play out later in the campaign.
> 
> But, the plots that are ongoing on the Island certainly aren't going to stop while they head to another island.



I think this is a great example of where you seem to be miscommunicating with people. I think, to most people, the act of a DM saying "OK, this is what happens in Farshore if the PCs aren't around" *IS* world-building. You have said several times that *setting building* involves detailing the things the PCs will interact with in the current context of the campaign, while *world building* involves detailing the things PCs aren't likely to interact with. It seems to me that, once the PCs leave Farshore, if you are figuring out what happens in their absence, you're worldbuilding, not setting building. Of course, if the PCs happen to come back to Farshore later, any work you do (or did) on Farshore is now setting building, not worldbuilding.

That's a pretty confusing and minor distinction, right? That's my point. What you call worldbuilding can easily be setting building given a slight change in context. There are obviously things that would tend to fall under the heading of setting wankery (the blueberry bushes in my campaign aren't called blueberry bushes, they're Iraram bushes), but I don't see anyone using those extreme examples of worldbuilding as things they do for their own campaigns. I think the difference between detailing a Thieves Guild in a town that the PCs will likely interact with at some point during the campaign, and detailing a Thieves Guild that the PCs indicate they will want to interact with next session is being blown way out of proportion. There's not that much difference between those two things.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 27, 2009)

Greg K said:


> better for everyone? No. Better for certain styles, yes.




I would say better for certain people, not styles.



> Did you miss the part about Hussar's players, the thief's guild and them having to wait a week?  In contrast, I was able to accomodate my players, who  wanted to go to an entirely different kingdom at the last minute based on an epiphany they had, that very same evening- I simply had pull out some notes and take a minute to claify some background info from one of the players. No need to postpone for a week.
> Not having to take a week to prepare, because I had info prepared prior to the the campaign starting, sure sounds like saving me work once the campaign starts.




I found your example a bit unsatisfying. It seemed to me that the PCs were already in the midst of the plague adventure, and solved the mystery and addressed it. It's not that they went off on something completely unrelated. Did I read that wrong?

On a tangent, I played in an epic 3e game. I made it a rule that we could NOT go on tangents at the start of a session. It was too much work for the DM to build quality encounters for such a game. I promised him that we would decide what we wanted at the end of a session, and after he planned it and statted it up, we would play it. Sudden changes of direction were only allowed at the end of the night.

PS


----------



## Storminator (Mar 27, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I think this is a great example of where you seem to be miscommunicating with people. I think, to most people, the act of a DM saying "OK, this is what happens in Farshore if the PCs aren't around" *IS* world-building. You have said several times that *setting building* involves detailing the things the PCs will interact with in the current context of the campaign, while *world building* involves detailing the things PCs aren't likely to interact with. It seems to me that, once the PCs leave Farshore, if you are figuring out what happens in their absence, you're worldbuilding, not setting building. Of course, if the PCs happen to come back to Farshore later, any work you do (or did) on Farshore is now setting building, not worldbuilding.
> 
> That's a pretty confusing and minor distinction, right? That's my point. What you call worldbuilding can easily be setting building given a slight change in context. There are obviously things that would tend to fall under the heading of setting wankery (the blueberry bushes in my campaign aren't called blueberry bushes, they're Iraram bushes), but I don't see anyone using those extreme examples of worldbuilding as things they do for their own campaigns. I think the difference between detailing a Thieves Guild in a town that the PCs will likely interact with at some point during the campaign, and detailing a Thieves Guild that the PCs indicate they will want to interact with next session is being blown way out of proportion. There's not that much difference between those two things.




I think Hussar's point is that once the game is in swing, you detail the surroundings. It WOULD be setting wankery to detail Farshore, and track the changes there, before the PCs even leave Sasserine for the Isle of Dread. Once they arrive in town, it's not.

PS


----------



## Ourph (Mar 27, 2009)

Storminator said:


> I think Hussar's point is that once the game is in swing, you detail the surroundings. It WOULD be setting wankery to detail Farshore, and track the changes there, before the PCs even leave Sasserine for the Isle of Dread. Once they arrive in town, it's not.




I think that statement requires some major qualifications to be true. If the DM is introducing plot hooks in Sasserine that might lead the players to the Isle of Dread, is it "wankery"? I agree, that there is a distinct difference between tracking the political climate in a remote village the PCs will likely never encounter and tracking the political climate once they have encountered it. No argument there.  But what about the middle ground, where the village is something that there is a distinct chance the PCs will interact with later in the campaign?

Is anyone in this thread even claiming they do what you are suggesting? I haven't seen anyone saying that their setting is detailed down to the individual mayoral elections in every village and town in their entire fantasy world no matter how irrelevant such events might be to the campaign. I think the distinctions we're talking about are a lot smaller than the ones you and Hussar keep using as examples.


----------



## Stormtalon (Mar 27, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I think this is a great example of where you seem to be miscommunicating with people. I think, to most people, the act of a DM saying "OK, this is what happens in Farshore if the PCs aren't around" *IS* world-building. You have said several times that *setting building* involves detailing the things the PCs will interact with in the current context of the campaign, while *world building* involves detailing the things PCs aren't likely to interact with. It seems to me that, once the PCs leave Farshore, if you are figuring out what happens in their absence, you're worldbuilding, not setting building. Of course, if the PCs happen to come back to Farshore later, any work you do (or did) on Farshore is now setting building, not worldbuilding.




The distinction here, I believe, is that worldbuilding involves detailing things that the characters _might_ at some point in the distant future, interact with outside of the main thrust of the campaign, via going off on tangents, losing interest in the current plot or what have you -- but they haven't _yet done so_.

Keeping track of goings on in an area where the PCs have a vested interest and that they're extremely likely to return to is simple campaign maintenance.  The idea is that areas/groups/etc that the party hasn't visited or interacted with don't exist until contact is initiated -- but once they DO exist, any story-important threads and activities keep going in the absence of the party.  Conversely, if contact is only incidental and non-story impacting then things can be allowed to sit in virtual stasis until the next time the party encounters that group/area -- unless of course, there's spillover from one of the major tracked events.  

For instance, a thieves' guild that doesn't have any real plot impact besides providing occasional info for a party rogue doesn't need to have its activities tracked constantly and can remain somewhat static.  Of course, if the city it resides in just got razed by orcs, the guild goes away along with everything else in the city.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 27, 2009)

On stories, and the abandoning thereof:

Before a princess can be rescued from a dragon, there must be at minimum a princess and a dragon (and a rescuer, perhaps the princess herself). There are likewise prerequisites for other stories. So, if _the players, via role-playing,_ are going to choose their "stories," then the ingredients need to be in place for more than one story.

Moreover, in the traditional RPG campaign these are not regarded as tales effectively to be twice-told (once in the GM's mind, and again at the table). They are regarded rather as _events_ taking place in the milieu. THE STORY is whatever comes of the players' choices.

Taking into account both the fact that this is a game, and the importance of suspension of disbelief in a fantastic fiction, scenarios in which "only the PCs can do it" may be unsuited to the purpose. "Only the PCs can save the world from destruction" seems best suited to a case in which one wishes to see the world destroyed, which is probably uncommon when one has just begun to explore it.

Perhaps the players will not even attempt to rescue the princess. It need not follow that she is never rescued. Each different possibility has different consequences.

Again, how are the players to choose if there are no options brought to the table? "You can try to rescue the princess, or not play the game." That can be a fine way to play, but it is not the only one. It is not what traditionally a "D&D campaign" has meant, being more akin to a succession of tournament games.

"You _shall_ rescue the princess; we're making moves and rolling dice just to see what path the story takes to that conclusion," is an extremely rigid railroad.

The traditional D&D dungeon is a traditional D&D campaign in a nutshell. The DM sets up an environment, and the players interact with it as they choose. Wilderness and town are extensions of the same basic principle.

How much the DM has created, and to what level of detail, can vary greatly. As I observed earlier, setting the bar too high can be a great excuse for procrastination: "I can't run a game yet, because the campaign world is not finished."

Ideally, it is _never_ finished. That does not mean that one should start with a meager range of options for the players -- much less continue to offer such a constrained environment.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> "You _shall_ rescue the princess; we're making moves and rolling dice just to see what path the story takes to that conclusion," is an extremely rigid railroad.




That is an extremely narrow view of what D&D is then.  All our games are exactly like you've listed.  None of the players in our game would say we are being railroaded.

If we can decide to save the princess by sneaking in the back door or the front door and it is possible to sneak past the dragon while he's sleeping or wait until he leaves his lair and rescue the princess then we aren't being railroaded.  Of COURSE we are going to rescue the princess, that's what the game is about.  There's never really a thought given to other options.

I've seen way too many comments on these boards that insinuate that anyone who doesn't play a sandbox game is doing it wrong.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 27, 2009)

The classic D&D campaign setup is pretty cunning.

Players start in an area with a dungeon and a nearby "home base" (whether a little village such as Blackmoor or a great city such as Greyhawk). The surrounding region is mostly wilderness, mysterious to the players until explored. Indeed, it can be detailed "on the fly" if need be -- the Outdoor Survival board being recommended in the original set as a makeshift map for such impromptu expeditions.

Many DMs make the danger of the monster-infested wilderness more manageable (and more realistic) by dividing it into areas more or less risky in analogy with dungeon levels. The further one gets from settlements, the greater the danger (bearing in mind the likelihood of the settlements having survived in the first place).

However, the rewards of wilderness expeditions tend not (at least for low-level characters) to be as attractive relative to risk as plundering the dungeon. Likewise, the peril of venturing too deep into the underworld means that only a bit need be worked up at first.

One can really "go to town" on going to town, because the places and people there are pretty certain to see a lot of reuse. Relationships made there can be springboards for countless adventures, including those that expand the focus to the wider world.

It is in my opinion a brilliant scheme, requiring little labor to set up and well suited to gradual elaboration.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> All our games are exactly like you've listed.  None of the players in our game would say we are being railroaded.




Really?

My group would mutiny the second I suggested that they were going to do something, and their only choice was to how to go about it.

I'm not knocking your style - if it works for you, keep with it - I'm just surprised that there are groups out there that take that kind of thing in stride.



> Of COURSE we are going to rescue the princess, that's what the game is about.  There's never really a thought given to other options.




That's what *your* game is about, perhaps.



> I've seen way too many comments on these boards that insinuate that anyone who doesn't play a sandbox game is doing it wrong.




...and the amount of simulationist-hate thrown about gets rather tiresome. It's a two-way street.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 27, 2009)

> Of COURSE we are going to rescue the princess, that's what the game is about. There's never really a thought given to other options.
> 
> I've seen way too many comments on these boards that insinuate that anyone who doesn't play a sandbox game is doing it wrong.



Majoru, that simply happens to be what "railroad" _means_ in this context. "Wrong" doesn't figure into it except that it's not how D&D has traditionally been played. "Of COURSE White always wins, that's what Chess is about" would be similarly so. The "of COURSE" bit puts the complaint in the category of hypocrisy.


----------



## sinecure (Mar 27, 2009)

I do not want to claim the OP's quoted texter is railroading without warrant, but it sounds kind of like that is what he wants.  How on earth does one "focus on your campaign and not building your world" work without forcing a plot on the players?  Roleplaying is just living in that world anyways. Not some preconceived plot ride.  But maybe I'm getting it wrong.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 27, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> ...and the amount of simulationist-hate thrown about gets rather tiresome. It's a two-way street.




I don't think anyone should hate on anyone else's style of play. But... I'm confused by this statement. I wouldn't equate sandbox with simulationist. One can choose to play a "simulationist" game in a sandbox style... But one can also play a "gamist" game in a sandbox style.

(Then again I'm not particularuily fond of the whole gamist/simulationish/narrativist thing...)


----------



## Stormtalon (Mar 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> That is an extremely narrow view of what D&D is then.  All our games are exactly like you've listed.  None of the players in our game would say we are being railroaded.
> 
> If we can decide to save the princess by sneaking in the back door or the front door and it is possible to sneak past the dragon while he's sleeping or wait until he leaves his lair and rescue the princess then we aren't being railroaded.  Of COURSE we are going to rescue the princess, that's what the game is about.  There's never really a thought given to other options.
> 
> I've seen way too many comments on these boards that insinuate that anyone who doesn't play a sandbox game is doing it wrong.




Now, I'd wager that it's not done as a "thou shalt do this," by your DM, of course.  I view my primary job as DM to be the providing of interesting antagonists that the PCs will really, _really_ want to thwart.  So, the PCs end up doing as I somewhat envision them to do, but it's because they want to, and _that's_ because they absolutely hate the guy behind it all.

There's no decree from me that they MUST DO THIS -- they just really really like the taste of plot-flavored breadcrumbs.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Majoru, that simply happens to be what "railroad" _means_ in this context. "Wrong" doesn't figure into it except that it's not how D&D has traditionally been played. "Of COURSE White always wins, that's what Chess is about" would be similarly so. The "of COURSE" bit puts it in the category of hypocrisy.




I think what he means is, it's not a railroad because the DM isn't forcing them to save the princess when the players have decided they don't want to save the princess.

The option to save the princess is presented, and OF COURSE they save the princess, because to them the game is about being heros and heros save the princess. It's also not a railroad because they're free to choose any method of saving the princess they want. But not saving the princess (by choice) is not an option they're going to take.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 27, 2009)

Stormtalon said:


> Keeping track of goings on in an area where the PCs have a vested interest and that they're extremely likely to return to is simple campaign maintenance.  The idea is that areas/groups/etc that the party hasn't visited or interacted with don't exist until contact is initiated



But again, this is a purely artificial and theoretical construct that has nothing to do with the way people actually prepare for games. Probably 90% of any given adventure the PCs go on is composed of things they haven't interacted with until that specific game session, does that mean the details of that adventure shouldn't be created before the game session? Is that the way you prepare for a game session? Do you think that's the way Hussar prepares for a game session, based on the stuff he's described to us about his game in this thread? I don't.

As I said before, you seem to want to talk about qualitative absolutes when what occurs in the real world is not so absolute. Most DMs prioritize what they prepare based on what the PCs are likely to interact with. The real world distinctions between the people in this thread are more about 1) how likely an interaction has to be before they do the work to prepare something; and 2) how far in advance they prepare for those likelihoods.

Some of the terms being thrown around here ("setting wankery", "lazy DMing") describe pretty extreme styles of DMing. I'm just not seeing that there's such a huge difference between a DM who prepares some details about a Thieves Guild before the campaign starts because there's a 30% chance the PCs will interact with it later in the game and a DM who prepares a Thieves Guild one session in advance because there is a 100% chance that the PCs will interact with it in the next session. In neither case would I apply the pejorative terms being thrown around in this thread. I think people are coming up with extreme examples of campaign prep attached to those terms which have absolutely nothing to do with the way people in this thread actually prepare for their games.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Majoru, that simply happens to be what "railroad" _means_ in this context.



That is NOT what railroad means in this context. If there are multiple paths to reach the same conclusion it's in no way a "railroad". A railroad runs on rails that go in a straight line from point A to point B to point C to point D. A train cannot jump the tracks, take a detour to point M, skip point C completely and end up at point D. The fact that the PCs have a goal provided by the DM in no way makes the game a railroad.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 27, 2009)

Ourph said:


> That is NOT what railroad means in this context. If there are multiple paths to reach the same conclusion it's in no way a "railroad". A railroad runs on rails that go in a straight line from point A to point B to point C to point D. A train cannot jump the tracks, take a detour to point M, skip point C completely and end up at point D. The fact that the PCs have a goal provided by the DM in no way makes the game a railroad.




Yeah, I kinda get the impression that those who toss the R-word around so cavalierly have never encountered a true Railroad adventure or GM, where the poor PCs are shuttled along from scene to scene, as helpless as livestock on the rock island line from New Orleans.

Railroading - the pig iron of RPGs.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 27, 2009)

> If there are multiple paths to reach the same conclusion it's in no way a "railroad".



Ourph, I don't know how you come by that notion, or how anything but a simple text (with NO game element at all) could fit your definition of a "railroad" plot.

I came by my usage by way of convention going back decades among D&Ders of my acquaintance.

We called the Dragonlance series "railroad," and _Ravenloft_, and other modules. I called _Vecna Lives!_ the greatest "railroad" I had ever encountered. Even "pick your own path" books at least allowed for different outcomes!


----------



## S'mon (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Heh, honestly, I'd likely do the same thing.
> 
> Really though, is a random encounter table world buildling?




Not if they're the generic tables out of the book.  

The results of those tables do create the world, by establishing that orcs live here, and there's a dragon over there.  But that creation occurs in-play.

BTW, thinking about it I never used to have any trouble winging it, whatever the players did.  1e AD&D, WEG Star Wars, even Paranoia, they all gave me plenty of support.  My early days running 3e were like that too, but at one point running 3e I definitely got in a rut where I didn't want the players to deviate, I was afraid to wing it (though with notice I was happy to prep stuff).  I think 3e's prep burden and possibly a lack of GM support tools (like good encounter tables - 3.0 was dire) was to blame.  

My current 3.5e campaign has a sketchy but fairly atmospheric world/setting inspired by CS Lewis' The Last Battle and the Song of Roland; the campaign comprises basically a series of modules* which are site-based with basic goals like rescue the prisoner, retrieve the sun disks, kill the enemy leader.  The PCs are pretty much constrained by the module; they could abandon it but I may not have anything else prepped for them to do.  It sounds unsatisfactory, but for a public access RPG club game with highly variable player group it seems to work very well.

*So far, a 1-session intro adventure followed by
B7 Rahasia
B5 Horror on the Hill (partially completed)
GG Palace of Shadows
GG The Slithering Overlord


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Majoru, that simply happens to be what "railroad" _means_ in this context. "Wrong" doesn't figure into it except that it's not how D&D has traditionally been played. "Of COURSE White always wins, that's what Chess is about" would be similarly so. The "of COURSE" bit puts it in the category of hypocrisy.




I was just trying to make a point about our point of view.  From my point of view it comes down to this:

-If the DM is giving us a plot hook, it is because he has spent some significant time planning for us following the hook.

-No one I know has enough time to plan for multiple plot hooks.  They barely have enough time to plan for one.  If they wrote up a dungeon where the Dragon lived, then it took him his entire preparation time since last week.  If we say no to rescuing the princess, it is likely that the DM will either find a way to use that dungeon wherever we go, provide us with more incentive to save the princess, or he'll be running the game on the fly.  On the fly games are not very much fun.  The battles tend to be randomly picked from a Monster Manual rather than planned out in advance.  The NPCs are cardboard cutouts because they haven't been planned out, and so on.

-I like to accomplish things that matter beyond my own character.  Preferably good and heroic things.  Which means I need problems to solve.  Which means I need a DM to give me problems.


I hear people talk all the time about how they plan out 4, 5, or 6 or more plot hooks, fully fleshed out with monsters, names of NPCs, plotlines, and so on just in case they are chosen by the players.  That amount of work for a game is way beyond what anyone I know is willing to spend.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 27, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> We called the Dragonlance series "railroad,"




Dragionlance railroads because if you try to leave the path, draconians attack you until you get back on it.  If you die, you come back to life.  You're not supposed to deviate from the plot of the novels.

A typical site-based module has a goal - Kill the Giants, Rescue the Princess, etc.  The better ones  have various possible approaches to achieving the goal.  Even the more linear ones (eg Palace of Shadows, which I just ran), which have numerous sequential rooms, do not railroad if they do not predetermine the outcome of the encounters.

Railroading requires plot.  It is a plotting technique.  A bad technique.  There are genuine railroad adventures (one I bought recently - The Cult of Yexx - "PC X cannot die.  If he does, the GM must resurrect him").  IMO they are an abomination, and should never be confused with regular 'you are the hero, save the princess' adventures.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 28, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Care to explain how it is "certainly a strategy that works" if, overall, you disagree that it has any benefits?



It works, but it has no benefits _over any other approach_. We are comparing relative benefits, not absolute benefits.

I don't think it should be a hard concept to grasp. I do apologize of my wording was a bit vague, though. However, in the future I would appreciate it if you didn't try to tell other people how to interpret my wording.

To be absolutely clear, though... My main purpose in that post was to express disagreement with the many posters in this thread who have been trying to claim that their style is inherently better than the style Hussar has been advocating, yourself included.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> Did you miss the part about Hussar's players, the thief's guild and them having to wait a week? In contrast, I was able to accomodate my players, who wanted to go to an entirely different kingdom at the last minute based on an epiphany they had, that very same evening- I simply had pull out some notes and take a minute to claify some background info from one of the players. No need to postpone for a week.
> Not having to take a week to prepare, because I had info prepared prior to the the campaign starting, sure sounds like saving me work once the campaign starts.



I didn't miss that. Actually, the part of my post you are quoting was intended to implicitly reference that idea. I disagree that the "create it as a you go" approach is inherently limiting in this regard. If nothing else, I have absolutely no doubt that a good DM can just make up a thieves' guild on the fly without a week's prep work. That is the kind of DM I am working to become, at any rate.

To be perfectly honest, the only real "worldbuilding" that needs to be done is the creation of a basic framework that makes future "on the fly" creativity easier to do while still maintaining verisimilitude. The DM just needs to create basic rules and concepts, and a world will naturally follow from those concepts whether it is fleshed out in the beginning or not (something like a fractal program evolving from a seed value, I guess).

Also, since I am on the topic of this thread, I may as well say that while I do think heavy worldbuilding _is_ a valid way to play the game, it is not the method of playing the game that should be taught to beginner DMs. The ability to tell the difference between the kinds of setting detail that are useful to the game and the kinds of setting that are unhelpful or even damaging to the game is a difficult skill to learn for someone with no DMing experience, yet it is an absolutely essential one for a worldbuilding-intensive approach. Without that skill, it is easy to fall into the pitfall of creating a setting that doesn't allow for fun adventures, yet that skill may be even harder to learn than the skills needed to run the game on the fly.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> IIf we say no to rescuing the princess...




I think sandbox games where the PCs do whatever interests them, and scenario-based games where the PCs do what the GM puts before them (as in my current campaign) are both valid approaches.

The latter approach I think requires a touch more responsibility from the GM.  He has to ensure that there is player buy-in, that the adventure is something the PCs would reasonably undertake, that they don't feel forced into an unnatural situation.  It helps I think to have a campaign premise that supports mission-based play; eg the PCs may be part of a military unit.  In my current game they are champions of the kingdom, sent on missions by the aged king.   Their exploits are greeted with public acclaim and much gift-giving.  And I try to present choices where possible, especially if the PCs are doubtful.  Eg Palace of Shadows (rescue the King of the West from the wizard Egarim) looked a bit like a suicide mission, so I emphasised the dangers and offered the PCs an easier alternative mission.  Naturally they insisted on undertaking _Palace_!


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 28, 2009)

S'mon, it appears that you are in agreement with me. Is the determinative meaning of _shall_ in English no longer familiar? I thought it clear enough, given the context I provided.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 28, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Ourph, I don't know how you come by that notion



I come by that notion because the term "railroad" is a metaphor which applies to a certain, real-world apparatus that has very definitive features, one of which is that you can't deviate from the path between two points. If the rails that run from Chicago to New Orleans pass through St. Louis, you can't take the railroad from Chicago to New Orleans without passing through St. Louis, period. That's how railroads work. Ergo, if you go from Chicago to New Orleans without passing through St. Louis, you weren't on a railroad. The same applies for the metaphorical usage.



> Even "pick your own path" books at least allowed for different outcomes!



How could they, each of those books was "about" something (like rescuing a princess) if you were reading _The Forest of Doom_ you couldn't choose to go off and explore _The Dungeon of Dread_ by turning to the right page, you had to work on the quest that the book was "about". OMG, it must be a railroad! 

The "save the princess" adventure allows for different outcomes too, just like choose your own adventure books do (moreso even, since it's an RPG rather than a pre-written book). The PCs could fail and/or die. The PCs could make a deal with the dragon rather than fight it. The PCs could kidnap the princess themselves and hold her for an even larger ransom than the dragon. You are asserting that such an adventure can have only one outcome because it suits your purposes in this discussion, but that doesn't make it true.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 28, 2009)

Ourph, you can look up railroad maps (or simply what switches are) for yourself. The fact remains that being unable to change the outcome _most definitely_ falls historically into the category of what "railroad" means in D&D terms. I would call it indeed the most egregious form! Since you apparently are approaching the subject theoretically, I'll point out that an encounter with an overwhelmingly likely outcome is typically _not_ considered "railroading" -- the greater context of how the encounter came about is telling.

"Pick your own path" books arguably were railroads. They just happened (if they were halfway decent, IMO) to connect the starting station with several destinations -- the more, the greater the replay value. The whole context, though, is different from a D&D game.

I _never_ asserted "that such an adventure can have only one outcome!"  Let me remind you, by the way, that I _did_ write that setting up a limited scenario *is a fine way to play* ... so perhaps you'll at least think twice before falsely attributing to me the opposite claim.

I _do_ assert that when the PCs _cannot_ fail, the "save the princess from the dragon" scenario is a railroad.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 28, 2009)

GnomeWorks said:


> ...and the amount of simulationist-hate thrown about gets rather tiresome. It's a two-way street.




World building is part of all creative agendas.

_How_ you build your world will differ depending on which creative agenda you're working with, but _all_ role-playing requires a setting in order to work.


On "railroading": I think the best definition is when players are not able to make meaningful decisions.  What's meaningful for a certain player or group varies quite a bit.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 28, 2009)

"Hear, hear!" to what Lost Soul said.

A number of approaches to "role-playing" and "story-telling" games have over the past 20 years become much more prominent. Their pervasiveness in the D&D community today is particularly striking because in large part they first built up steam as reactions _against_ (not merely to) the pioneering RPG. The "in the family" aspect of clashing views creates a slightly different dynamic than a debate between a D&Der and (e.g.) a _Vampire: the Masquerade_ enthusiast who never saw much point in D&D.


Besides different tastes, there are practical limitations. One reason I have never DMed 3E is that the amount of game-mechanical work it seems to require to meet the expectations of 3E players is too much for the kind of D&D campaign I like to run and the amount of time and energy I would devote to it.

The rules-lightness of older D&D, and the underlying philosophy that informed it, is better suited to my particular needs as a D&D campaign referee.

A handy tip: The best-documented campaign setting available is the real world! Furthermore, the difference between fact and fiction is that the latter "has to be believable." Reality gets away with being stranger and more wonderful than one could imagine.

The "www" makes it easier than ever for a GM to make use of the labor-saving device of actual Earthly cartography, history and so on.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 28, 2009)

Storminator said:


> I
> I found your example a bit unsatisfying. It seemed to me that the PCs were already in the midst of the plague adventure, and solved the mystery and addressed it. It's not that they went off on something completely unrelated. Did I read that wrong?




The plague had  just been something that they had encountered here and there in there travels while trying to help one of the characters discover what happened to his sister and her adventuring party.  They never had paid much attention to the plague (except to heal victims) or the areas where they encountered it until discussing things waiting for me.  It was also during these discussion that they realized that the only undead they encountered were in the areas where there had been plague outbreaks and that the plague and resulting were moving much closer to their homelands.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 28, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Ourph, you can look up railroad maps (or simply what switches are) for yourself.



Oooh zing! Show me one train system where the passengers lay out the rails or control the switches and you might actually have a leg to stand on.



> I _never_ asserted "that such an adventure can have only one outcome!"



Majoru said in his second post on the subject that there were multiple ways for the PCs to approach the "save the princess" scenario. So if the original poster said there were multiple avenues of progress and you agree that there are multiple possible outcomes, in what conceivable way would it be considered a railroad (by any definition of that term)?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2009)

Some great stuff all around.  Keep it up.  Although, to be honest, I'm thinking that this railroading tangent has kinda gone off the tracks.   



sinecure said:


> I do not want to claim the OP's quoted texter is railroading without warrant, but it sounds kind of like that is what he wants.  How on earth does one "focus on your campaign and not building your world" work without forcing a plot on the players?  Roleplaying is just living in that world anyways. Not some preconceived plot ride.  But maybe I'm getting it wrong.




This is something that has been repeated a few times and I'd like to address this specifically.

One can most certainly focus on the campaign without any sort of preconceived plot ride.  For example, you could start your campaign based on a theme, discuss that theme with the players, then work with the players during character creation in order to craft a campaign that focuses on the goals and themes that the players themselves bring to the table.

That's certainly one way, there are others.



			
				Gregk said:
			
		

> The plague had just been something that they had encountered here and there in there travels while trying to help one of the characters discover what happened to his sister and her adventuring party. They never had paid much attention to the plague (except to heal victims) or the areas where they encountered it until discussing things waiting for me. It was also during these discussion that they realized that the only undead they encountered were in the areas where there had been plague outbreaks and that the plague and resulting were moving much closer to their homelands.




So, if I'm understanding you right, you dangled multiple plot hooks in front of the players, gave them a fair bit of information, had this plague element in your campaign for quite some time, but were completely blindsided when they decided to act on it?  Is that correct?



			
				Aristo said:
			
		

> I do assert that when the PCs cannot fail, the "save the princess from the dragon" scenario is a railroad.




Totally agreed.  But, I have to ask, what does this point have to do with anything I said?  Where did I or anyone else say that the players cannot fail?

What I said in my example was that if the PC's choose to ignore this event, then there are consequences.  Sure, the princess might get saved by someone else, or she might get eaten.  Both of those are consequences.

I was questioning the point that was brought up that people want to play games where you can abandon any campaign element at any time.  If you can, then there are no consequences.  There can't be.  If there were consequences, then you cannot just abandon story elements without suffering something.

One thing that I do think though is that if your players are so disconnected from the events in your campaign that they can abandon story elements without any notice to do things that are completely surprising to the DM, you have larger issues at the table.  If you as the DM have done such a poor job engaging the interests of your players in whatever events are occuring around them, or if the players are just totally uninterested on their own, then there are much larger problems at your table than world building or lack thereof.

I can understand players being creative in solving a problem.  That's fine.  That's great.  But, going back to our Councilor Traitor example, if the players half way through suddenly leave town to explore a tropical island and become pirates, no amount of world building is going to save your game.  They are just not buying what you are selling.

This sort of thing has to be worked out a the outset of the campaign.  It's all about campaign buy in.  Not that the players must march lockstep to the tune of the DM.  That's totally not what I'm saying.  But, there has to be some agreement within the entire group that the campaign is going operate within certain limits.

Take a non-D&D example.  If you're playing a Spycraft game and you are hunting down the enemy agent, and the entire group decides to leave the country to take a vacation in Hawaii, then you have a problem.  I realize that this is an extreme example, but, this is what I'm taking from the conversation.  That some players want the freedom to completely eject from the campaign and do something completely different at a moments notice.

I think that's very unrealistic.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 28, 2009)

Hussar said:


> That some players want the freedom to completely eject from the campaign and do something completely different at a moments notice.
> 
> I think that's very unrealistic.



That was essentially my earlier point. I've never encountered a player who would do something that extreme or would feel like the freedom to do something like that made for a better game. I've also never encountered a DM who prepared to the extent that the players could literally eject from the current campaign context and do anything they wanted without the DM having to improvise most of the adventure for that session. I think people are throwing around a lot of theoretical extremes in order to "score points" that have absolutely nothing to do with the way the game actually gets played.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 28, 2009)

Ourph, Hussar, et al: You might obviate some huffing and puffing if you bother to read _what I actually wrote_ with an eye to the most straightforward meaning, rather than attributing to me the apparently much more voluminous subtext you have chosen to read between the lines.

The "cannot fail = railroad" observation was directly occasioned by comments from Majoru and Ourph.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2009)

Ourph said:


> That was essentially my earlier point. I've never encountered a player who would do something that extreme or would feel like the freedom to do something like that made for a better game. I've also never encountered a DM who prepared to the extent that the players could literally eject from the current campaign context and do anything they wanted without the DM having to improvise most of the adventure for that session. I think people are throwing around a lot of theoretical extremes in order to "score points" that have absolutely nothing to do with the way the game actually gets played.




Yeah, I think we're on the same page here.

My point, I think (and I might be getting turned around here, which often happens to me in multiple page threads), is that the level of world building you engage in doesn't necessarily equate to greater player freedom.

To use the thieves guild example, what if we go the other way?  I've detailed out my city, and it doesn't have a thieves guild.  Maybe there's a reason why, maybe not.  There doesn't have to be a guild in every single town or city.  Maybe there are just a bunch of street gangs with no larger organization.  So, when the player says he wants to contact the thieves guild, my answer is now "no" because I know for a fact that there isn't one to talk to.

Again, this doesn't have to happen and maybe it won't.  But world building can be every bit as limiting as not world building.

Y'know, I think I can end this discussion fairly easily.  

You guys are right.  So long as I accept that world building and setting are synonymous then you are 100% right.  You must world build in order to run a campaign, since every campaign absolutely requires a setting.  If a random encounter table that is geared to a particular location counts as world building, then, hell I can't argue against that.  I've got six bloody random encounter tables on the go RIGHT NOW.    In all likelyhood the majority of encounters, both combat and non for the foreseeable future in my current campaign will be drawn from random encounter tables.

Now, I don't think that's world building, but, if it satisfies your definition, then fine, it is.  I have a nice little sandbox with a number of plotlines all going on and several events that are pretty much unscripted, and other than a map, I have done very little in the way of world building as I understand the term.

Meh, that's the sticking point and I guess it always was.  I'll take my idiosyncratic ball and go home.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 28, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> The "cannot fail = railroad" observation was directly occasioned by comments from Majoru and Ourph.




Yeah, of course the PCs can fail.  They have before, even in my games.  They've been TPKed by enemies and started a new campaign, for one.  I admit to there being very FEW options, in order to keep the campaign manageable by the DM.

I'm with Hussar and Ourph on this one.  I doubt that any DM seriously sits down and has enough fully fleshed out plotlines to actually handle a group who switches gears completely mid adventure.  Most DMs make up 1, maybe 2 as an alternate and get their players and their PCs to buy into whatever they have planned.

That's kind of why I'm baffled by "world building".  I build what I need for the adventure at hand and nothing else.  If we are calling setting building and world building the same thing, then I agree with the premise as well.  

However, there are a number of people on these boards that I've seen claim that they factor EVERYTHING in their world into what happens in their sandbox.  i.e. "Today, the mayor of town X is on his 3rd day of vacation, so he gets up and has breakfast and is killed by the assassin who was waiting for the 3rd day to kill him.  Of course, that's 6 Kingdoms over, so the PCs won't know about it yet.  Meanwhile, according to my notes, the dragon who lives in cave Y is getting hungry.  He'll have to feed.  Also, the election in kingdom Y has 2 weeks left before the ballots are counted.  Time to roll on the random election event table.  Alright, that having been done with, let's move on to the adventure at hand, the PCs are trying to rescue a woman kidnapped by a gang in a back alley.  They are searching for the woman when a giant dragon suddenly appears in the sky..."

When, I don't think a random dragon attack adds to the "save the girl" adventure.  It seems out of place and random.  I like my adventures to be closer to novels.  They should seem like they had an intelligent design behind them.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2009)

Now, Majoru, I wouldn't quite put it as far as this:



> When, I don't think a random dragon attack adds to the "save the girl" adventure. It seems out of place and random. I like my adventures to be closer to novels. They should seem like they had an intelligent design behind them.




This is honestly just bad DMing and is fairly independent of world building.  World building doesn't necessitate having completely unrelated events come crashing together.  It might, but, I've seen that in campaign driven campaigns as well.  Without knowing more about the situation and having a larger understanding of what the DM is attempting to acheive (maybe, for example, the dragon is related somehow to the "save the girl" plot, we don't know at this point, but the DM should).

I don't think I'd go so far as to say that world building results in bad games.  Actually, I wouldn't say that at all.  It might, it might not, that's completely up to the DM.

My take is that world building should not be seen as a requirement for campaign design.  That, in the same way that world building doesn't have to result in completely random events popping up all over the place, lack of world building doesn't mean that you are lockstep railroading the players.

Again, this whole thing got started on the wrong foot because I was trying to be funny and it didn't work at all.

I think that DM's, particularly new DM's would be much better served by being given advice to the effect that you should spend most of your effort, particularly your initial effort to get your campaign together, on the campaign itself - plot(s), theme(s), and those elements which are most likely to come into play that are related to plot and theme.

That you can create great campaigns while world building first has never been a question for me.  Of course you can.  Hell, Ed Greenwood is living proof of that.  But, for the rest of us mere mortals who perhaps are not as gifted, telling us that we should be building a world first, before we even start considering what story or adventures we want to engage in, is, in my opinion, too difficult.

I'd much rather focus advice on how to manage a campaign, how to get it started, keep it going and see it to the end, than spend rather large amounts of time telling people how to create fantasy worlds.

I am absolutely in awe of people who do create these huge intricate worlds.  Fargoth, for example, is the result of god knows how many hundreds, if not thousands of man hours of work.  That's damn impressive.  But, in the end, to me it's a ship in a bottle. It's the model train set.  It's the Death Star made of Lego.  Very, very impressive, wonderful work, but, ultimately just something that you look at.

Now, I realize that there are different opinions out there.  And, regardless of my over the top statements earlier, I can certainly appreciate the work and effort that goes into them.  I'm simply trying to say that there might, maybe, be a better way.


----------



## Ariosto (Mar 28, 2009)

"That's just bad" in place of "that's not what I like" is pretty contentious.

Funny thing is, some D&Ders happen to like the classic game. Encounters that have nothing to do with a "story" are part of the game. When you turn your preference into a put-down, some folks might think it nice if you were to go off and find a game you actually like instead of hanging around with one (and players thereof) you feel obliged to insult.

If you express your likes and dislikes as merely what they are, you'll probably get a friendlier response.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> "That's just bad" in place of "that's not what I like" is pretty contentious.
> 
> Funny thing is, some D&Ders happen to like the classic game. Encounters that have nothing to do with a "story" are part of the game. When you turn your preference into a put-down, some folks might think it nice if you were to go off and find a game you actually like instead of hanging around with one (and players thereof) you feel obliged to insult.
> 
> If you express your likes and dislikes as merely what they are, you'll probably get a friendlier response.




Y'know what?  I'm not going to apologize for this one.  The Nazi Zombie Bugbear encounter that you drop into the campaign for no reason other than you happened to roll on the random encounter table is bad gaming.  It serves absolutely no purpose.

To me, if that's good gaming, then so is any MMO or CRPG you care to name where you have exactly this sort of thing. 

Explain to me how a "role" playing game is well served by having pointless, meaningless combat parachuted into the campaign and how does it not turn tabletop RPG's into a PnP version of Diablo?

I know it's bad form to widdle on someone's playstyle, but, y'know what?  This isn't 1984.  We've moved on from these sorts of games where you put the monster manual on the table and your campaign starts at Aarococra and stops at zombie.  

I love combat.  I loves me the hack.  But, even I balk at the idea that a "good" game of RPG's is tabletop wargaming.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 29, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Y'know what?  I'm not going to apologize for this one.  The Nazi Zombie Bugbear encounter that you drop into the campaign for no reason other than you happened to roll on the random encounter table is bad gaming.  It serves absolutely no purpose.




Not everything needs to serve a freaking "story."

Since when the hell did playing in a setting where things happen that don't make the PCs believe the world revolves around them become such a bad thing?

I *like* the idea of things happening that don't involve my PC. I like the idea of things going on that I have no idea about, that there are things going on that I simply don't - at a given point - have the means to influence, but could if I so chose.

Sometimes, Dorothy, following the yellow brick road gets freaking boring.



> Explain to me how a "role" playing game is well served by having pointless, meaningless combat parachuted into the campaign and how does it not turn tabletop RPG's into a PnP version of Diablo?




You are so... missing the point.

In Diablo or MMOs, you don't ask questions when some random mob attacks you. You accept it as part of the game. It's a thing, it goes on, whatever, it doesn't really matter.

In a tabletop game, the difference is that the PCs can ask questions. Why is there a random Nazi zombie bugbear running around out here? Is there a necromancer nearby doing it? Is it a result of some ancient burial ground nearby that is acting up? And sure, the DM may not have necessarily thought of a good reason for why this random encounter took place, but improv is part of the game.

Sometimes the random encounter becomes a lot more interesting than whatever linear crap you had waiting for the group.



> I know it's bad form to widdle on someone's playstyle, but, y'know what?  This isn't 1984.  We've moved on from these sorts of games where you put the monster manual on the table and your campaign starts at Aarococra and stops at zombie.




And I thought we had moved on past the idea of linear plots, having realized that we can find those in games like Diablo and MMOs, and decided that capitalizing on the differences in tabletop games to make them a different experience was a good call.

Apparently not, though.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2009)

> Not everything needs to serve a freaking "story."
> 
> Since when the hell did playing in a setting where things happen that don't make the PCs believe the world revolves around them become such a bad thing?




Really?  Not everything in a role play game needs to serve a story?  Honestly?  THAT'S the point you want to make.  That a collection of random fights with absolutely no connection makes a GOOD role playing game?  Is this really what you want to say?

And a game where events occur that don't revolve around the PC's?  Why would you as the DM bother and why would I as the player care?  If something happens that has no relation to my character, then what purpose does it serve?  If the dragon kidnaps a princess in a land I've never heard of and cannot get to, who cares?

Sorry, but I do believe that the campaign DOES revolve around the PC's.  It would be like spending twenty minutes of Star Wars watching random Storm Trooper talk to his captain about the price of new blaster parts.  WHO CARES?




> In a tabletop game, the difference is that the PCs can ask questions. Why is there a random Nazi zombie bugbear running around out here? Is there a necromancer nearby doing it? Is it a result of some ancient burial ground nearby that is acting up? And sure, the DM may not have necessarily thought of a good reason for why this random encounter took place, but improv is part of the game.




But the answer to the question is none of the above.  The answer is, the DM rolled a random encounter that had absolutely nothing to do with the campaign.  It's totally random.  If he suddenly goes back and starts rewriting his campaign so that the encounter makes sense, you're going to lose continuity very, very quickly.

If the encounters are set up so that they fit within the context of the campaign, that's one thing.  If you tailor a random encounter table to take into account elements of your campaign, that's fine.  That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the DM who attacks the party for no reason, other than he rolled a 1 on some arbitrary die and then rolled 15 on the "Wilderness encounter" table.  It has no story, no reason to be there.  It's totally disconnected from everything.  That the DM now has to flail around trying to retcon his setting to fit in with this random event pretty much blows any idea of continuity out of the water.

Or, to put it another way, if the dragon shows up in the town out of the blue, one would reasonably ask, "How come no one's ever heard stories about a great big dragon that lives around here?"

Again, linear or non-linear are not dictated here.  You can have non-linear plots that do not require completely disconnected events to suddenly pop up for no reason.  You can have linear plots that are completely made of random encounter tables.  

Linear does not require premade nor does non-linear require random.


----------



## rounser (Mar 29, 2009)

We've done this thread before.  Because there is no clear delineation between game-relevant and game-irrelevant worldbuilding, and people are so passionate about the hobby-within-the-hobby, the thread went for 56 pages:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/193738-why-worldbuilding-bad.html

By the way, IMO Hussar is right.  Worldbuilding is enshrined and fetishised in D&D culture, and doesn't deserve anywhere near the status or time and attention it gets, relative to making actual adventure material or campaign arcs.  

I understand why: it's fun and rewarding and offers a sense of demiurge-level power to stamp your personality on realms that never were, whereas prepping for the nitty gritty of an encounter or campaign arc is often too much like hard work.  Making world maps is fun, and reading macro-level setting material is more fun than reading adventures or actually prepping.  

I think the best kind of worldbuilding is low level, actual encounters that PCs can interact with, like in the Wilderlands setting (although I don't think the implementation is perfect).  But macro-level wankery is the rule, and yes, it's bizarre (until you consider the psychology behind why that might be).


----------



## Bacons (Mar 29, 2009)

I think the fetishisation of worldbuilding in fantasy roleplaying is related to the fetishisation of worldbuilding in fantasy fiction writing. There is a pervasive idea amongst a lot of people trying to write fantasy (and SF) that, because it worked so well for Tolkien etc., it is the only way, and D&D is no stranger to Tolkien obsession either.

I like worldbuilding, and I like looking at worlds other people have built, but I don't think it is overly helpful to advise people that it is the One True Path.


(I have to disagree with Hussar, however, that random encounters are omgbad, even if completely random encounter tables aren't something I would utilise myself. I, personally, think the only worthwhile definition of a "good" game is one in which both the players and the GM have fun.)


----------



## rounser (Mar 29, 2009)

To help define what people are talking about, I offer up the example of Keep on the Borderlands.

The background material on the "Realm of Law" and chaos.  Is this too little worldbuilding for you to run a campaign on in the area?  How much do you need?  How much space (world) do you need to run a campaign in?  Do you prefer quantity of space or quality of detail (because these seem mutually exclusive)?

The unnamed denizens of the keep.  Is this sketchy adventure design, sketchy setting design (Hussar-speak), or sketchy worldbuilding?

The Caves of Chaos.  Is detailing these adventure design or worldbuilding?  What about the wilderness?  What about the keep?

Giving a keep NPC an adventure plot hook to take the PCs to the Caves.  Worldbuilding?  Adventure design?  Story?  Campaign arc?  All of these? What about the hermit in the wilderness and his pets?


----------



## jdrakeh (Mar 29, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Not everything in a role play game needs to serve a story?  Honestly?  THAT'S the point you want to make.  That a collection of random fights with absolutely no connection makes a GOOD role playing game?  Is this really what you want to say?




_Dude_. Some people enjoy playing D&D like that. If you don't, that's cool — but is "If you don't tell a story with D&D, then you're a useless moron stuck in 1984!" really what _you_ want to say?  

I usually see eye to eye with you but I have to confess that it really _does_ seem like you're beating the bad, wrong, fun drum much too hard in this instance. _This isn't 1984?_


----------



## S'mon (Mar 29, 2009)

I remember 1984... It was the time when linear "story" and "plot" was replacing the environment-based or "sandbox" game as the default mode of play.  

I strongly disagree with Hussar that everything must serve an overarching story/plot or it's a waste of time.  I find "Adventure Paths" very boring.  I like being able to explore a world (even if that world is emergent in play, not pre-written).  Random encounter tables are a great tool to aid exploration.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 29, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Y'know what?  I'm not going to apologize for this one.  The Nazi Zombie Bugbear encounter that you drop into the campaign for no reason other than you happened to roll on the random encounter table is bad gaming.  It serves absolutely no purpose.




Ah, here we go again with Hussar proclaiming himself arbitrator of "good gaming" using both an antagonistic tone and hyperbolic extremes... why am I not surprised. 



Hussar said:


> To me, if that's good gaming, then so is any MMO or CRPG you care to name where you have exactly this sort of thing.




Then perhaps you should ask yourself, just why your view of "good gaming" is so limited?  Oh, yeah love the MMO reference...  Though I will say your eagerness to lump all CRPG's and MMO's, IMO, shows a lack of experience with them... also, who said many of them aren't "good gaming" and if they're not, why do people play them?



Hussar said:


> Explain to me how a "role" playing game is well served by having pointless, meaningless combat parachuted into the campaign and how does it not turn tabletop RPG's into a PnP version of Diablo?




Because both the PC's and the DM can make them meaningful and important in the context of the game beond the single random encounter if they desire to.  

A fight with your run of the mill street scum in a rain drenched alley can have reprcusiions both good and ill if a party chooses to show mercy.  Perhaps one of their number reforms and becomes an informant for the PC's... perhaps they seek vengeance on the PC's and become a new antagonist in the world?  Perhaps it just serves the purpose of showing just how dangerous the Poor Quarter is... Or maybe it can make one neighborhood in the Poor Quarter a little safer.

I honestly am sorry that you can only equate a random encounter (which doesn't even have to be combat based) with "pointless, meaningless combat..."  but then you are the authority on what is or isn't "good gaming"...I guess.



Hussar said:


> I know it's bad form to widdle on someone's playstyle, but, y'know what?  This isn't 1984.  We've moved on from these sorts of games where you put the monster manual on the table and your campaign starts at Aarococra and stops at zombie.




Wow, just wow.  Do you realize how high and mighty you sound?  And again with the extremes to prove your point..."put the monster manual on the table and your campaign starts at Aarococra and stops at zombie."... is that really what a random encounter is.  You know Hussar your arguments would be better served if you didn't always resort to this type of thing.



Hussar said:


> I love combat.  I loves me the hack.  But, even I balk at the idea that a "good" game of RPG's is tabletop wargaming.




Again a random encounter doesn't have to be combat... and depending on what you or your players make of it can lead to interesting possibilities game wise.  I guess it just depends on how much thought and imagination one is willing to put into their game.  Perhaps your "story-mode" of running games has limited you to only viewing things within that particular box and how they can fit in with your methodology... I would say before attacking something perhaps you should try peeking outside of that box...


----------



## Imaro (Mar 29, 2009)

You know I'm curious concerning Hussar and Majoru and a few others, when do you start designing a campaign.  I see you all talk about the time limit and work and how no one could possibly detail all the stuff world builders claim, but I design my campaign world before actual play starts. 

As an exmple right now my group is running a multi-DM Castles and Crusades campaign (typical high fantasy)... but I know afterwards I'm going to run a 4e game (trying for the 3rd time to sell my players on it, but if not Pathfinder will be out by then and I'll use that) and thus have begun (using Obsidian Portal) to create a campaign wiki that details my world.  I have months (until around September) to finish this before we would start playing so I don't run into the limited time only problem you all seem to have.  

Will everything about the City of Gulmenghast be detailed before play?  No.  Will more than enough be detailed that the PC's will be able to run in almost any direction they want to, and I'll be bale to handle it with ease... I believe so since this is how I tend to world build, but we'll see.


----------



## billd91 (Mar 29, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Y'know what?  I'm not going to apologize for this one.  The Nazi Zombie Bugbear encounter that you drop into the campaign for no reason other than you happened to roll on the random encounter table is bad gaming.  It serves absolutely no purpose.
> 
> To me, if that's good gaming, then so is any MMO or CRPG you care to name where you have exactly this sort of thing.
> 
> Explain to me how a "role" playing game is well served by having pointless, meaningless combat parachuted into the campaign and how does it not turn tabletop RPG's into a PnP version of Diablo?




It's good because the combat isn't actually pointless or meaningless. Random encounters serve to keep the PCs mindful that they are in a dangerous area even if they have already killed all the creatures in the encounter space, that not all fights are initiated by them, that they can't play by going nova for all encounters, that they have to conserve resources against unknown dangers, and, because the encounter tables are keyed to the location (perhaps more general, perhaps more specific) they serve as potential sources of information about the surroundings assuming the PCs don't just hack the creatures to death.

Random encounters are a tool to use in promoting good gaming. They can be poorly used or well used, but in and of themselves they are not any sort of hallmark of bad gaming.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 29, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Not everything in a role play game needs to serve a story?  Honestly?  THAT'S the point you want to make.  That a collection of random fights with absolutely no connection makes a GOOD role playing game?  Is this really what you want to say?




Oh yes, because clearly that's all a game is going to consist. Your hyperbole sucks, and so does your position.

Just because there is a story going on does not mean that everything needs to cater to it, not everything needs to be relevant to it. Multiple stories can go on, and there can be random events that occur that have absolutely nothing to do with them!

That's how life works, and a game that fails to acknowledge such a thing is meaningless.



> And a game where events occur that don't revolve around the PC's?  Why would you as the DM bother and why would I as the player care?  If something happens that has no relation to my character, then what purpose does it serve?  If the dragon kidnaps a princess in a land I've never heard of and cannot get to, who cares?




You - as a player - would probably not care about things happening elsewhere, mainly because you seem fixated on the idea that the DM is going to hand-feed you a plot and you seem utterly unwilling to deviate from the idea that there is a central story going on.

The dragon kidnapping a princess in another land might not matter, but it also might. The players should be able to decide for themselves what they're going to deal with, rather than have me, as DM, decide for them. Because at that point, they might as well go play WoW or Diablo, because I have removed meaningful choice from the game.



> Sorry, but I do believe that the campaign DOES revolve around the PC's.  It would be like spending twenty minutes of Star Wars watching random Storm Trooper talk to his captain about the price of new blaster parts.  WHO CARES?




Your hyperbole sucks again.

Just because there are things going on above and beyond the PCs does not mean that the camera leaves them. They learn of other events from their perspective; it's not like we do cut-scenes or some crap like that. If they have no interest in events not immediately pertaining to their yellow brick road, then - unless those events happen right on it - they're not going to hear about them.



> I'm talking about the DM who attacks the party for no reason, other than he rolled a 1 on some arbitrary die and then rolled 15 on the "Wilderness encounter" table.  It has no story, no reason to be there.  It's totally disconnected from everything.  That the DM now has to flail around trying to retcon his setting to fit in with this random event pretty much blows any idea of continuity out of the water.




Random crap happens all the time. Why does everything have to make sense? It doesn't. The world doesn't have a story. Stories happen within the setting, but the setting itself doesn't freaking care.

And I really seriously doubt that trying to establish where a random monster came from - a truly random monster - would seriously deal a deathblow to my setting's continuity. That's just... ridiculous.



> Or, to put it another way, if the dragon shows up in the town out of the blue, one would reasonably ask, "How come no one's ever heard stories about a great big dragon that lives around here?"




If you are so unimaginative as to be unable to come up with a vaguely-reasonable answer to that question in ten seconds, I feel sorry for you and your players.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 29, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Will everything about the City of Gulmenghast be detailed before play?  No.  Will more than enough be detailed that the PC's will be able to run in almost any direction they want to, and I'll be bale to handle it with ease... I believe so since this is how I tend to world build, but we'll see.



I don't think the question is "Will you be able to handle it?", the question is "Will you need to rely primarily on improvisation?". Even with a volume the size of Ptolus (plus all the supporting material) as a backdrop for my current 4e campaign, I'm still improvising quite a bit every session. Having that support material helps with the improv. and probably keeps it more cohesive, but it's still a huge part of each session (and I wouldn't say I'm running a 100% sandbox campaign either). So when someone indicates that not only a single city in their campaign world, but the entire world is so detailed that the PCs can, literally, jettison the current campaign context and do something completely unrelated and it won't mean the DM is essentially winging the entire session, I'm a little dubious.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 29, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I don't think the question is "Will you be able to handle it?", the question is "Will you need to rely primarily on improvisation?". Even with a volume the size of Ptolus (plus all the supporting material) as a backdrop for my current 4e campaign, I'm still improvising quite a bit every session. Having that support material helps with the improv. and probably keeps it more cohesive, but it's still a huge part of each session (and I wouldn't say I'm running a 100% sandbox campaign either). So when someone indicates that not only a single city in their campaign world, but the entire world is so detailed that the PCs can, literally, jettison the current campaign context and do something completely unrelated and it won't mean the DM is essentially winging the entire session, I'm a little dubious.




Well first the city is basically my entire "world" for the campaign (It drifts in the dark aether between portals to other worlds known as "stars"), it's something I've wanted to do in the vein of games like GTA and Saint's Row for awhile.  Secondly I am right now detailing the different sections, power structures within, adventuring sites, how they are connected, random encounters(using customized tables) within the different wards, Major and minor NPC's of note and relationship maps for them where applicable, as well as goals and motivations of NPC's, etc.... Again I have about 6 months to slowly construct this so I'm not pressed for time.

I'm sorry you've never encountered someone who was able to do this beforehand, but my group and I have been playing together for years and it's just how I construct my worlds.  I give myself ample time to fully flesh it out... I don't try to run a campaign on a weeks prep, but that's just me... some may prefer their method to mine, but the experience my group has with my games... as well as the fact that we've stayed together so long... seems to indicate, at least for me, this is a valid and beneficial method.  YMMV and all that, but all I'm really saying is... don't tell me your opinions are objective fact when it comes to differing methodologies on campaign design.


----------



## rounser (Mar 29, 2009)

See, this is why I asked the Keep on the Borderlands quesstions, because you guys have failed to define terms and are filtering what Hussar says through your own assumptions.  

A lot of what I'm reading here doesn't even get the basic idea of what he's saying, and is just extrapolating it into complete straw men.  Just like the 56 page thread.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 29, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Well first the city is basically my entire "world" for the campaign (It drifts in the dark aether between portals to other worlds known as "stars"), it's something I've wanted to do in the vein of games like GTA and Saint's Row for awhile.  Secondly I am right now detailing the different sections, power structures within, adventuring sites, how they are connected, random encounters(using customized tables) within the different wards, Major and minor NPC's of note and relationship maps for them where applicable, as well as goals and motivations of NPC's, etc.... Again I have about 6 months to slowly construct this so I'm not pressed for time.



I'm still dubious that, even with 6 months time, you're going to have notes on this city that are as detailed as the Ptolus campaign setting (including all the additional supplemental material for that product). As I said, even with the voluminous amounts of information Ptolus and its supplements contain, conducting the campaign requires that for each session either 1) the PCs pretty much stick to the adventure that they're currently occupied with, and that I have detailed notes for; or 2) I improvise a lot, with the aid of the background information I have available.

It sounds to me like your extensive work on the campaign might make #2 a lot easier for you, but it won't change #2 into #1.



> I'm sorry you've never encountered someone who was able to do this beforehand, but my group and I have been playing together for years and it's just how I construct my worlds.  I give myself ample time to fully flesh it out... I don't try to run a campaign on a weeks prep, but that's just me...



I think you're vastly overextending what I said in my previous post.



> some may prefer their method to mine, but the experience my group has with my games... as well as the fact that we've stayed together so long... seems to indicate, at least for me, this is a valid and beneficial method.  YMMV and all that, but all I'm really saying is... don't tell me your opinions are objective fact when it comes to differing methodologies on campaign design.



I think you must be confusing me with someone else, because I didn't make any value judgements about your methods in my post, or anywhere else in this thread for that matter. The fact is, the methods I'm using for my Ptolus campaign are almost exactly the methods you are using for your upcoming one (except for the fact that I let Monte Cook do the majority of the work for me). I'm just saying, even with a setting like Ptolus, where the DM has immense amounts of background information at his disposal, players jettisoning from the current campaign focus and doing something completely off-beat is going to require a lot of DM improv.

Lots of background information can make the improv easier, but it's still improv. That is the only thing that I'm asserting as fact.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 29, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I'm still dubious that, even with 6 months time, you're going to have notes on this city that are as detailed as the Ptolus campaign setting (including all the additional supplemental material for that product). As I said, even with the voluminous amounts of information Ptolus and its supplements contain, conducting the campaign requires that for each session either 1) the PCs pretty much stick to the adventure that they're currently occupied with, and that I have detailed notes for; or 2) I improvise a lot, with the aid of the background information I have available.
> 
> It sounds to me like your extensive work on the campaign might make #2 a lot easier for you, but it won't change #2 into #1.




I will disagree here, the more work I put into worldbuilding the better my chances are that #2 becomes #1.  As an example, let's say in Gulmenghast the PC's are investigating a rash of kidnappings, now somehow they get it in to their head that one of the Hundred Gods Cults is responsible... perhaps some of the Gray Man's followers.  Now if I've detailed the ward of Godshome and the temples within it (including the Grey Man's) then #2 is #1.  Of course their is the possibility that I haven't detailed the Gray Man yet, and #2 it stays... however my point remains, the more I detail the better chances are I end up with a number 1.




Ourph said:


> I think you're vastly overextending what I said in my previous post.




Perhaps I am, if so I apologize.



Ourph said:


> I think you must be confusing me with someone else, because I didn't make any value judgements about your methods in my post, or anywhere else in this thread for that matter. The fact is, the methods I'm using for my Ptolus campaign are almost exactly the methods you are using for your upcoming one (except for the fact that I let Monte Cook do the majority of the work for me). I'm just saying, even with a setting like Ptolus, where the DM has immense amounts of background information at his disposal, players jettisoning from the current campaign focus and doing something completely off-beat is going to require a lot of DM improv.




Actually it was a general statement about the tenor which this thread took on with it's earlies posts and comments certain posters made.



Ourph said:


> Lots of background information can make the improv easier, but it's still improv. That is the only thing that I'm asserting as fact.




And again... with a caveat firmly in place, I disagree to a point... but that's cool because if we all agreed and ran our games the same way it would make for booring conversation.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 29, 2009)

rounser said:


> See, this is why I asked the Keep on the Borderlands quesstions, because you guys have failed to define terms and are filtering what Hussar says through your own assumptions.
> 
> A lot of what I'm reading here doesn't even get the basic idea of what he's saying, and is just extrapolating it into complete straw men.  Just like the 56 page thread.




I think the problem with your question is that it pre-supposes intimate knowledge or memory of the Keep on the Borderlands.  I had the module and ran it... but that was years ago, thus I can't even begin to go into any depth in regards to it.  Why don't you just ask whatever question(s) you want answered.

First, as even some of Hussar's supporters have said... it ain't always what you say but also how you choose to say it.  

Second the strawmen came out when Hussar decided to start using the worst possible examples of world-building and an extra side of hyperbole to argue for "Story"-building.  So proponents responded in the same manner.  At least that's why I did.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 29, 2009)

tangent

Is this a railroad:

"You are starting in Chicago.  You WILL go to New Orleans, and you WILL pass through St. Louis on the way.  You can take the train, or drive, or fly, or walk for all I care; and you don't even have to go in a straight line, but those cities are where you're going."

/tangent

Lan-"I'm the train they call the City of New Orleans"-efan


----------



## Woas (Mar 29, 2009)

I would say yes. It's the equivalent to a DM saying, "You WILL face my totally tricked out Boss enemy and you WILL face his also totally awesome Lieutenant Mid-Boss. I don't care how you deal with getting to them, but those are the prescribed enemies that you will face."




Lanefan said:


> tangent
> 
> Is this a railroad:
> 
> ...


----------



## GnomeWorks (Mar 29, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Is this a railroad:




Yep.


----------



## Pierson_Lowgal (Mar 29, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> tangent
> Is this a railroad:



No.  
The implication of railroading is that there is one track, and the PC's, like a train, must follow it.  As long as there is more than one track, and the track are meaningfully different from the perspective of the PC's, it is not a railroad.  

If the hallways to the left and the right are described identically, then the decision to go left or right is valueless.

Example: The players must decide whether to go against the Broccoli-Boys or the Cauliflower-Carnivores.  Only, none of the characters has a history with either group.  The PCs have never before met the NPCs who are offering the missions.  The choice exists, but is valueless.  
Example: As above, but one character's father is a racist against broccoli people.  The party rogue has secretly learned of an ancient treasure the cauliflower-carnivores posses.  The broccoli boys have been causing trouble in an area near a holy site of the party's paladin.  A poor shepard, but an old friend, is offering one mission and the local baron is offering the other.  Now, the choice is interesting, compelling and meaningful to the characters because of an investment in character and story building.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 29, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> tangent
> 
> Is this a railroad:
> 
> ...




Good Lord, I've been a railroad DM all this time and I never knew it!

See, I used to think that a DM's job was to supply an overarching narrative element to the game. I (as DM) create a game with some element I want to explore; a demon-lord needs stopping, a kingdom needs founding, a cheerleader needs rescuing, etc. I present (more or less) the problem to the PCs, they figure out how to solve it. Along the way, they stumble across things I want them to for no other reason then I want them to. And yes, sometimes my PCs get involved in odd side-projects and minor plot and I have to sink their barge, but that's the way life is; Demon lords don't wait around for PCs to finish exploring Castle Von Doom before sending thier minions to sack Greyhawk. 

Because otherwise, the world is mechanical. Orcs always appear in the Bright Desert, Giants wander Geoff, and at 12:00 PM EST, a demon cult tries to summon an Aspect of Orcus and will continue to try until the PCs go and stop them. Without an overarching meaning, the DMs job falls from "storyteller" to "game-server", making sure random spawn points for monsters and loot appear in their predetermined places and times.

Rema- "I guess D&D IS WoW" -thilis.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 30, 2009)

> "You are starting in Chicago. You WILL go to New Orleans, and you WILL pass through St. Louis on the way. You can take the train, or drive, or fly, or walk for all I care; and you don't even have to go in a straight line, but those cities are where you're going."




It doesn't provide _meaningful choice_, so yeah, it is. 

Not that it's necessarily horrible or anything. If the players are cool with choosing between paths going in the same direction, it's a fine way to play. Frequently, I'll put that kind of railroad on character creation:

"I don't care what you are or who you are or why you are, but here's the thing: You all have been hired by this wizard to find this MacGuffin, and you want to do it. Maybe he paid you. Maybe he's your uncle. Maybe you're secretly in love with his beard. Maybe you think he's a succubus. I don't care. You just want to do THIS."

After character creation, the rails are usually off. I don't tell players what their motives are or how to go about accomplishing them; I don't force them to have a particular destination. At character creation, this is mostly because I don't want to spend three hours wrangling them into the same spot just so that there can be an adventure. Afterwards, it's up to them.

I might say "You are starting in Chicago, and you want to go to New Orleans" as a way to open the character creation. Once they're on their way, I can probably have them pass through St. Louis, but if one of the PC's maybe is afraid of St. Louis, I won't force the issue.

I'll give them stuff to do, but it will never be the ONLY thing there is to do. 

Once the PC's reach St. Louis, I might want them to go to Houston, but I don't tell them they need to go to Houston, I provide them incentive to go there (and also incentive to stay). 

Typically, I'll just say "You are starting in Chicago. What do you want?" and then let them know, via NPC dialogue that New Orleans has what they want, and that St. Louis, along the way, might be a good place to crash?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 30, 2009)

On the trip to St. Louis thing.  Let's change it slightly.  Let's set this back a few years and your only two choices are horses or train.  Train is much faster (obviously) and easier.  The players have the means to pay for a train ticket.

Now, I don't know my American geography as well as I should, but, assume for the sake of arguement that the roads and the train line pass through New Orleans on the way to St. Louis.

Is this still a railroad?  

Or, to take it another way, is it a railroad to have the players explore the Amazon river?  There's pretty much only one way to do it - boat.  You cannot really turn or choose to go somewhere else.  Assuming the players have bought into the exploration theme, is this a railroad campaign?

Heck, is Imaro's floating city a railroad?  You cannot leave the city.  You are forcing the players to stay in the city, isn't that railroading?

Honestly, all of the above, from a certain point of view, probably are railroading, but, without any negative context.  Imaro's campaign sounds cool.  I'd love to do a Savage Worlds campaign based on exploring the Amazon river in the 1920's.  I really wish there was a neutral term for defining campaign limitations that avoided the railroading term.  I've heard Shepherding, but, I'm not sure if that works either.




Imaro said:


> You know I'm curious concerning Hussar and Majoru and a few others, when do you start designing a campaign.  I see you all talk about the time limit and work and how no one could possibly detail all the stuff world builders claim, but I design my campaign world before actual play starts.
> 
> As an exmple right now my group is running a multi-DM Castles and Crusades campaign (typical high fantasy)... but I know afterwards I'm going to run a 4e game (trying for the 3rd time to sell my players on it, but if not Pathfinder will be out by then and I'll use that) and thus have begun (using Obsidian Portal) to create a campaign wiki that details my world.  I have months (until around September) to finish this before we would start playing so I don't run into the limited time only problem you all seem to have.
> 
> Will everything about the City of Gulmenghast be detailed before play?  No.  Will more than enough be detailed that the PC's will be able to run in almost any direction they want to, and I'll be bale to handle it with ease... I believe so since this is how I tend to world build, but we'll see.




You don't see a problem with the fact that you are going to spend six months detailing your campaign setting before you feel comfortable beginning?

Would you say that this is good advice to players?  That they should spend six months detailing a campaign world before they sit down to create the adventures in that campaign world?  

Should we advise DM's that spending 6-12 months before you run a game is a good idea?

I personally don't think so.

On the badwrongfun thing for random encounters.  Sigh.  I really wish people would take the time to actually read what I write and not just knee jerk react.  Look, I know that random encounters can be fine.  I even said that I use them, AND in the apparently offending post, I specifically say that they can be fine.  Go back and read the post if you don't believe me.

What I DID say was that meaningless, disconnected combat encounters were a bad thing that turns D&D into Diablo.  

Now, sure, you could somehow mold your campaign around the random event that has no link to the players, but, then, the event is no longer meaningless, so, it's not a bad thing anymore.  

Me, I'd rather have random encounter tables that make some sense given the context of the game.  "You're walking down the forest path and out jump... (roll roll roll) ... 15 Nazi Zombie Bugbears! Roll for initiative" might be fun, but, hey, I gotta say that it's not a game I'd want to play in.

OMG, Hussar said mindless, meaningless combat with no relation to the plot or the characters is bad!  How dare he make any sort of judgement on another game.  Come on.  Are you really going to sit there and tell me that mindless, meaningless combat is GOOD gaming?

((Note, to all of you who want to take my example and change it to mean more than it is, try not to.  Read what I just wrote, and please stop trying to take it to mean something larger than it is.))


----------



## Imaro (Mar 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Heck, is Imaro's floating city a railroad? You cannot leave the city. You are forcing the players to stay in the city, isn't that railroading?




Actually, you can leave the city... you see the city has to barter with, trade with and raid other worlds to keep itself functioning... so there is plenty of chances to leave the city...Now the real question is why don't most citizens and what are the consequences for doing so permanently...




Hussar said:


> Imaro's campaign sounds cool.




Why thanks, I try....




Hussar said:


> You don't see a problem with the fact that you are going to spend six months detailing your campaign setting before you feel comfortable beginning?




Where did I say I wouldn't be comfortable beginning in less than six months?  I however do have 6 months to plan and want to use it building the world.  Just for the record this isn't the only way I start games...  the C&C campaign my group is running now wasn't really planned out extensively at all, and is a more "fog of creation" type campaign with multiple DM's building as we go. 



Hussar said:


> Would you say that this is good advice to players? That they should spend six months detailing a campaign world before they sit down to create the adventures in that campaign world?




First I wouldn't advise them to create "the" adventure in their campaign world at all (my campaign world I'm building doesn't have 1 adventure). You see my advice to them would be that their methodology should be dependent upon what they are trying to achieve and what works best for them in achieving that method.  Instead of stressing one or the other I would instead give them an unbiased account of what I feel the pros and cons of the two approaches are and let them decide for themselves which they want to use.  IMO, adventures or situations (setting-based, time-based, etc.) are actually part of worldbuilding...



Hussar said:


> Should we advise DM's that spending 6-12 months before you run a game is a good idea?
> 
> I personally don't think so.




Who said it had to be 6 months to a year?  Really your using hyperbole again and it's getting tired.  This is why it's hard to discuss anything in a meaningful way with you.  I gave an example of how, I have found the time to create a particular setting I want to flesh out exstensively... is this a hard limit no, is 6 months to a year even necessary to have a nicely fleshed out world?  No.  So really what are you arguing... is it the time spent to worldbuilding or is it the act of worldbuilding you find distasteful?




Hussar said:


> On the badwrongfun thing for random encounters. Sigh. I really wish people would take the time to actually read what I write and not just knee jerk react. Look, I know that random encounters can be fine. I even said that I use them, AND in the apparently offending post, I specifically say that they can be fine. Go back and read the post if you don't believe me.
> 
> What I DID say was that meaningless, disconnected combat encounters were a bad thing that turns D&D into Diablo.
> 
> ...





Your original post was in response to Ariosto and his comment about encounters that have nothing to do with a particular story which does not equate to totally arbitrary meaningless combat.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 30, 2009)

Imaro said:
			
		

> First I wouldn't advise them to create "the" adventure in their campaign world at all (my campaign world I'm building doesn't have 1 adventure). You see my advice to them would be that their methodology should be dependent upon what they are trying to achieve and what works best for them in achieving that method. Instead of stressing one or the other I would instead give them an unbiased account of what I feel the pros and cons of the two approaches are and let them decide for themselves which they want to use. IMO, adventures or situations (setting-based, time-based, etc.) are actually part of worldbuilding...




You missed an "s" in my post.  Not "The Adventure" but the adventure*s* in a campaign.  Which you put into the column of worldbuilding.  I do not.  This is why we're having such a difficult time discussing, because we cannot agree on basic terminology.

I most certainly would not put adventure building into the realm of world building.  They are separate in my mind.  Heck, they're separate in the DMG as well.  Adventure building and world building are in separate chapters for a reason.  



> Who said it had to be 6 months to a year? Really your using hyperbole again and it's getting tired. This is why it's hard to discuss anything in a meaningful way with you. I gave an example of how, I have found the time to create a particular setting I want to flesh out exstensively... is this a hard limit no, is 6 months to a year even necessary to have a nicely fleshed out world? No. So really what are you arguing... is it the time spent to worldbuilding or is it the act of worldbuilding you find distasteful?




YOU said six months to build your world.  I tacked on extra months because you still need to create adventures AFTER you create the world. How is it hyperbole to use your own words?

Again, I don't find world building distasteful.  I've stated that numerous times.  I DO see it as a huge time sink that could be better spent.  So, yes, I guess it's the time issue.  World building has been so ingrained into the gaming culture that you, yourself cannot even separate out from designing a campaign.  You lump it all together as one activity.

Again, I do not.  I think that you can build deep, meaningful campaigns with lots of options and multiple plotlines, that is linked directly to the PC's, and includes elements that are beyond the PC's that they can choose to get involved in, all without spending several months detailing a world.

Yes, you are going to have to do SOME what you call world building.  I totally agree with that.  I would call that setting building honestly.  I would not call that world building because the goal of world building is to create a WORLD, not a campaign.  

But, we're just chasing our tails here.  We refuse to accept each other's definitions, and we likely never will.  I think that the "fetishization" of world building is a bad thing.  I think that it has become far too important for what it is - which is to me a solitary endevour for the enjoyment of the creator.  It's creating ships in a bottle or model trains.  Not that model trains or ships in a bottle are a bad thing.  But, they are bad if you want to play a naval combat game using those ships as a model (the bottles keep rolling off the table  ).  

That's why I don't like world building.  Because I see it as an activity divorced from the campaign.  You do not.  You include all setting construction under the umbrella of world building.  Obviously, I disagree.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Mar 30, 2009)

I am a proponent of the "Only create what you will use, improvise extensively in game, and take prodigious notes during play in an effort enhance consistency" method. I plan a general conflict that will involve the PCs. This idea of conflict necessitates both protagonists (usually the PCs) and antagonists (usually, but not limited to, the BBEG). I add details to make the conflict meaningful. I stop there so that the canvas is wide open during play, and I improvise a lot of stuff during play. I also invite the players to add to the world through and during play. I get surprised that way too.

This debate seems to stem around the idea of the necessity of planning. We all acknowledge that planning for stuff that we will _for sure use_ in our games is a good idea. We all even seem to agree with the idea that planning for things that we are _likely_ to use in our games is good. Some are saying that it is a good idea to plan things that we _might_ need.

I will ask the question, what probability of likelihood for use in our games is the threshold necessary for us to feel like planning is a good idea. 100% liklihood is a given. Many people would agree that 0% liklihood means that you are doing something besides RPGs at that point, even if related. Somewhere in between is where most people operate. Is 80% likely to use something enough to warrant planning? What about 60%? 40%? How about 20%. Is that enough reason to spend time working on things? It is obvious that each person will have their own threshold, but we all draw the line somewhere. I think that the OP was trying to state that the threshold should be higher than is implied in the DMG, or in the RPG community in general. I agree. Playing games is way more fun for me, and I would hazard to say it is for most, than planning games.

I have run many great campaigns using little worldbuilding as most people would recognise it. I improvise a lot. Many people don't allow themselves to, or don't admit that they do improvise. Planning the encounters that the PCs will face is a good idea. Getting an idea of the conflict is a good idea. Getting an idea of the characters that are involved and their roles is a good idea. Chronicaling history, planning the world geography, describing the politics outside of the PCs immediate sphere of influence, or charting the global or even the regional or local economics is usually wasted time. Make it up as you go. Play the game, don't plan the game, if time is limited.

The conflict in my opinion is the most important part of planning a campaign. Everything else can be winged on the fly without much problem. Without a conflict, there isn't much going for a game, and everything but the characters and the conflict is just set dressing. It can be very beautiful set dressing, and it can put the conflict in context, but it is just set dressing. This is less necessary than conflict, tone, and context.

I am experimenting with putting a game together almost randomly using random setting and plot tables, and winging the rest. Here are the random tables I will be using.

Here are my results.

*Setting-*Dreamworld/Fallen Civilization

Tone- Conspiracy/Horror
Thing 1- Clockwork Guardians
Thing 2- Special Ops

*Opposition-* Infestation

Action-Guide
Descriptor-Rigid
Thing-Espionage
Action-Assasinate
Descriptor- Mercurial
Other Thing-Religious Fanatics

The conflict will be stopping the recurrence of a dreamworld invasion that destroyed a previous civilization. The antagonists will be ancient dreamworld entities, posessed "normals", government special ops out to kill the PCs, ancient clockwork guardians, and cultists of forgotten religions. The PCs will have to figure out which NPCs are on which side, and how things fit together. I will plan things as I go.

I am planning to have the characters awaken in a lab with no memories of their past lives. They will all have strange tattoos of runes on their bodies. They will instantly be attacked by a group of fantasy special ops agents that state "We are too late! The ritual is complete! They must be destroyed." The other elements will be added after this. Yes, I stole this from a blog post I read. No, my results will not be the same as the original blogger's.

I am positive that I can develope a fully cohesive, wildly entertaining, and altogether unique campaign with an absolute minimum of world building, all from random tables. To plan more than I do will lower the likelihood of my planning being useful from 100% likely to be useful, to less than 100% likely to be useful, with more planning being correlated to lower likelihood of my plans being used in game. That means that some of my time will have been wasted. I am not interested in wasting my time. Those who like to world build can go right on doing it. I would rather play.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 30, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Is this a railroad:
> 
> "You are starting in Chicago.  You WILL go to New Orleans, and you WILL pass through St. Louis on the way.  You can take the train, or drive, or fly, or walk for all I care; and you don't even have to go in a straight line, but those cities are where you're going."




Depends.  Do the players care about deciding where they go?  Is that choice meaningful to them?  If not, I don't think it counts as railroading.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> You missed an "s" in my post.  Not "The Adventure" but the adventure*s* in a campaign.  Which you put into the column of worldbuilding.  I do not.  This is why we're having such a difficult time discussing, because we cannot agree on basic terminology.
> 
> I most certainly would not put adventure building into the realm of world building.  They are separate in my mind.  Heck, they're separate in the DMG as well.  Adventure building and world building are in separate chapters for a reason.




And yet taking my example earlier of The Gray Man's Temple... that is a ready made adventure if my PC's choose to investigate it, until that moment it is world building.  What I'm saying is that in building my world potential adventures are organically created so their is no hard line between the two.




Hussar said:


> YOU said six months to build your world.  I tacked on extra months because you still need to create adventures AFTER you create the world. How is it hyperbole to use your own words?




What I said was that I had 6 months not that I, or anyone else for that matter, needed 6 months.  As far as still needing to create adventures... read what I posted above.  A site based adventure is constructed whenever I detail a structure, neighborhood or ward in my city, a time based adventure is created when I plan out the major events that will, without intervention happen in the city.




Hussar said:


> Again, I don't find world building distasteful.  I've stated that numerous times.  I DO see it as a huge time sink that could be better spent.  So, yes, I guess it's the time issue.  World building has been so ingrained into the gaming culture that you, yourself cannot even separate out from designing a campaign.  You lump it all together as one activity.




  And does that time become wasted if they aren't willing to go along for the particular ride you've set up with all your carefully crafted adventures.  You see IMO, this is a dangerous road because it can easily lead to the bad type of railroading where the DM has already constructed what path he wants to transpire for the campaign... and he wouldn't want all that work to go to watse...  As far as seperating them, again my previous posts explain how my worldbuilding creates places, events, etc.... what it doesn't do is pre-suppose the PC's will choose any particular one.  


 Of course as the DM it becomes trivial for me to involve them or give them hooks to investigate any of them, however what I won't do is tell them... "Hey, guys this campaign will be about..." it's just not my style and I don't enjoy running a game that I know the outcome of or even the path it will take...  For my players and I to have the experience we all want, yes I am willing to put in extra work... Do I construct every campaign like this? No.  But it's a valuable tool for when it suits my purposes.  Is it necessary to play the game? No.  But again as I stated in an earlier post, neither is having a story.  It's about preferences and enjoyment.  You seem unable to grasp that what you consider "wankery" or a waste of time, for others could actually enhance their games.




Hussar said:


> Again, I do not.  I think that you can build deep, meaningful campaigns with lots of options and multiple plotlines, that is linked directly to the PC's, and includes elements that are beyond the PC's that they can choose to get involved in, all without spending several months detailing a world.




Are you kidding me? You're arguing about wasting time on the basis of use in game... but it's not a waste of time to *detail* multiple plotines (some not even linked to the PC's), some or many of which the PC's may ignore??  I'm confused how is this in anyway less of a potential time waster than worldbuilding?  It sounds like you just like building stories (even if they won't see use) more than you like the worldbuilding approach.

Once again... everything you talk about above can come about naturally, and IMO more organically, through world building.



Hussar said:


> Yes, you are going to have to do SOME what you call world building.  I totally agree with that.  I would call that setting building honestly.  I would not call that world building because the goal of world building is to create a WORLD, not a campaign.




A campaign isn't just a story either... that's a *story*.  IMO, a campaign is the sum of players choices, consequences, etc.  that take place within a particular world.  You seem to believe a campaign is adventure after adventure that the PC's follow.  



Hussar said:


> But, we're just chasing our tails here.  We refuse to accept each other's definitions, and we likely never will.  I think that the "fetishization" of world building is a bad thing.  I think that it has become far too important for what it is - which is to me a solitary endevour for the enjoyment of the creator.  It's creating ships in a bottle or model trains.  Not that model trains or ships in a bottle are a bad thing.  But, they are bad if you want to play a naval combat game using those ships as a model (the bottles keep rolling off the table  ).
> 
> That's why I don't like world building.  Because I see it as an activity divorced from the campaign.  You do not.  You include all setting construction under the umbrella of world building.  Obviously, I disagree.




Yes you're right, but it's because to me an adventure only happens when my PC's choose to interact with something... not because I decided the adventure for tonight will be "The Assault on the Cartwright Inn".  Thus citing the previous example, until a time comes that the PC's decide to interact with the Cartwright Inn...it exists as a part of the world (and even a potential adventure) but is not an actual adventure or story until the PC's choose to interact with it in some way.

As far as worldbuilding being a solitary endeavor, you should check out some indie games for examples of why it doesn't have to be that way.  Of course if your PC's do enjoy interacting with your world they may want you to create it independent of them so that they can explore it.  Again different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 30, 2009)

S'mon said:


> I strongly disagree with Hussar that everything must serve an overarching story/plot or it's a waste of time.  I find "Adventure Paths" very boring.  I like being able to explore a world (even if that world is emergent in play, not pre-written).  Random encounter tables are a great tool to aid exploration.




Seconded.



Imaro said:


> Ah, here we go again with Hussar proclaiming himself arbitrator of "good gaming" using both an antagonistic tone and hyperbolic extremes... why am I not surprised.




Because this is his particular railroad, which he has taken us down countless times before?  



> Then perhaps you should ask yourself, just why your view of "good gaming" is so limited?




Seconded.  In fact, I believe that the root source of this thread lies in exactly that question.



LostSoul said:


> Depends.  Do the players care about deciding where they go?  Is that choice meaningful to them?  If not, I don't think it counts as railroading.




On an EN World poll a while back, EN Worlders overwhelmingly voted that there was no objective criteria by which the term "railroad" could be defined.  As odd as I find that, we are currently in the age of "I will define terms however I like, so that it enhances my position, but I will not provide an objective definition in the event that doing so detracts from my position."

Which is, I think, what all of this "setting" vs. "worldbuilding" is, too.....especially taken in light of the quote in the OP.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Mar 30, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> tangent
> 
> Is this a railroad:
> 
> ...




Remember back in the day when you first learned about "word problems" in math class, and there was always that one that the correct answer was "not enough information." That's how I see this question- Not enough information.

In my experience Railroad has always been defined, not simply as there only being one option, but when a DM actively forces players (either in game or out of game) to choose that one option depite their wanting to make another choice which should in all rights be equally valid. It's not a railroad if the players just follow the suggested option, or never wanted to make another choice in the first place.

From the way you capitalized WILL it makes it seem as if the DM is going against what players might want (in which case it would be a railroad) but I don't know. 

It could also be the case that it's just the pre-amble to an adventure ina  group who doesn't care much about the backstory to how they got involved. For this type of group the only time choice matters (and when railroad can happen) is once the adventure has actively started.

Another area that I question is: Is it a railroad if the DM is actively thwarting a player's choice that was made based on metagame knowledge?


----------



## Kask (Mar 30, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> tangent
> 
> Is this a railroad:




Yes, of course.  As soon as the DM starts running PCs it is a railroad situation.
This will only happen though when a DM doesn't know that he isn't a player.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 30, 2009)

Bacons said:


> I think the fetishisation of worldbuilding in fantasy roleplaying is related to the fetishisation of worldbuilding in fantasy fiction writing.



Sure is. Though a more charitable way of stating would be "detailed world-building is a convention of the genre". 



> There is a pervasive idea amongst a lot of people trying to write fantasy (and SF) that, because it worked so well for Tolkien etc., it is the only way, and D&D is no stranger to Tolkien obsession either.



I'd say it's a pervasive idea among the people who write fantasy and science fiction precisely because it's what the readership has demonstrated that it wants. Like I said, it's a (popular) genre convention. It's not something being foisted on the readers by misguided authors (which is kinda what I get from your statement... forgive me if that's inaccurate).


----------



## Mallus (Mar 30, 2009)

rounser said:


> Worldbuilding is enshrined and fetishised in D&D culture, and doesn't deserve anywhere near the status or time and attention it gets, relative to making actual adventure material or campaign arcs.



Some people prefer not to use preplanned campaign arcs. And having a (somewhat detailed and thematically coherent --ahem, and I use _that_ word lightly) helps the DM create adventure scenarios from whatever actions the players take.

I frequently don't know what the adventure _is_ until it's underway. 



> I understand why: it's fun and rewarding and offers a sense of demiurge-level power to stamp your personality on realms that never were...



Sure is. 



> whereas prepping for the nitty gritty of an encounter or campaign arc is often too much like hard work.



Or the DM just doesn't like the trade-off involved in using predetermined campaign arcs. 



> But macro-level wankery is the rule, and yes, it's bizarre (until you consider the psychology behind why that might be).



It's not wrong for a scrawny database admin to pretend he's Conan but it *is* wrong for another --perhaps overweight this time?-- database admin to pretend he's God?


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I'd say it's a pervasive idea among the people who write fantasy and science fiction precisely because it's what the readership has demonstrated that it wants. Like I said, it's a (popular) genre convention. It's not something being foisted on the readers by misguided authors (which is kinda what I get from your statement... forgive me if that's inaccurate).




The parallels between this statement and the general furor surrounding the massive changes 4E brought to the Forgotten Realms intrigue me. 

Essentially, Ed Greenwood was one of the first out there to go detailing stuff that might or might not impact the players. He managed to make some decent money turning that into articles and eventually selling the Realms, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that he also managed to keep his players' interest for a long time. 

Now, I do expect someone to say "Yeah, but most GMs aren't Ed Greenwood," but so? Most GMs also lack the mapping skills of an architect, the plotting skills of a novelist, the vocal range of an actor and the improvisation skills of a comedian. Yet you don't have to be a pro in that kind of field to make this sort of thing work.

It just seems silly to me to try and isolate things like "world building" or "tight adventure plotting" as themselves ignoble and unworthy facets of game mastering. The taken-to-extremes versions, yes, that's unquestionable: the person who spends lots of time on minutiae without actually ever wanting to let players contribute or the railroad conductor who has a story in mind and refuses the players any attempt to change the sequence of events or bring in an unforeseen ending. But most successful games aren't extremes, they just have priorities in different proportions. And for every player who thinks it's a waste of time to invent a new species of berry bush, there's another who loves that attention to detail.

All comes back to one of the cardinal rules of gaming: play with people who like what you like.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 31, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Remember back in the day when you first learned about "word problems" in math class, and there was always that one that the correct answer was "not enough information." That's how I see this question- Not enough information.
> 
> In my experience Railroad has always been defined, not simply as there only being one option, but when a DM actively forces players (either in game or out of game) to choose that one option depite their wanting to make another choice which should in all rights be equally valid. It's not a railroad if the players just follow the suggested option, or never wanted to make another choice in the first place.
> 
> From the way you capitalized WILL it makes it seem as if the DM is going against what players might want (in which case it would be a railroad) but I don't know.



I'm taking the tack that the DM has decided going in that the campaign is going to go through Point A on the way to Point B regardless whatever else might happen and regardless what intervening choices the players/characters might make.  Thus, even if on leaving Chicago the players decide they're going to New York and in fact get there, St. Louis is still waiting and New Orleans after that; and sooner or later they're gonna get ther no matter what.


> Another area that I question is: Is it a railroad if the DM is actively thwarting a player's choice that was made based on metagame knowledge?



Railroad or not, it *should* come under the heading of smackdown.  If players are making choices based on knowledge their characters wouldn't and-or couldn't have, that's smackdown time; and an easy (if harsh) option is to simply ban that choice.

As for world-building vs. setting building (and for the life of me I can't see the difference), while I *could* run a game with nothing more than a village and a dungeon to start with, 6 months in I'll find myself having a hard time mining stories out of it and will have to do all the heavy lifting then anyway.  So why not get it out of the way before dropping the puck in the first place?

Lan-"building the world one story at a time"-efan


----------



## rounser (Mar 31, 2009)

> It's not wrong for a scrawny database admin to pretend he's Conan but it is wrong for another --perhaps overweight this time?-- database admin to pretend he's God?



This has nothing do so with what I said.

To reiterate, macro-level setting material for it's own sake is unlikely to impact play enough to justify the time and effort many DMs spend on it.  But it can be rewarding in itself, even if it is often an inefficient use of prep time in terms of running a game...thus, the "wankery" term.  It's best not to fool yourself with regard to it's actual utility in terms of prepping for a game, IMO.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 31, 2009)

Imaro said:


> You know I'm curious concerning Hussar and Majoru and a few others, when do you start designing a campaign.  I see you all talk about the time limit and work and how no one could possibly detail all the stuff world builders claim, but I design my campaign world before actual play starts.



Yeah, most of my campaigns started like this:

Friend 1: "Hey, I'm free on Tuesdays now due to a change in work schedule.  I was thinking I hadn't played D&D in a while.  Maybe we should start a home game that runs every Tuesday."
Me: "Sounds like fun.  I'm in."
Friend 2: "Me too"
Friend 3: "I can do that."
Friend 1: "Alright, we can start next week."
Me: "Yeah, sounds good."
Friend 1: "I'm glad you decided to DM, this'll be awesome."
Me: "What?  DM?  I...umm...guess I could come up with something by next week..."
Friend 1: "Perfect.  I can't wait...what races and classes are you allowing?  What level do we start at?"
Me: "I...Umm...1st level, I guess and any race and class."
Friend 1: "Cool, see you next week."

And then I have 1 week(or less), filled with working, any other plans I had already made to come up with what happens during the first session.  I also have to find a player 4 and 5 and possibly a player 6.  So I have to call nearly everyone I know who plays D&D and ask them if they are willing to commit to a weekly game.  Which takes a while.

I try to think of something cool to happen while driving from place to place and in between calls at work.  In about a week, I normally come up with something like "Some monsters....whichever ones are appropriate for 1st level characters attack the town and kidnap someone...who will be important to all of the PCs.  They'll fight off the attackers but not before some of them get away with the person(which happens on the other side of town, so the PCs won't be able to physically stop it) and then there will be a skill challenge to chase the creatures down, they'll have a face off against the chief of the tribe and save the kidnapped person.  That should be enough for one session."

That, incidentally, was EXACTLY the plot for my last 4e home game.  And the total amount of prep work I had done before the first session.  At the beginning of the session, I looked up what creatures were appropriate(goblins) and came up with relatively balanced encounters on the fly.

Did I have any idea what country the village was in?  Nope.  The name of the world even?  Nope.  I didn't even know what the name of the village was.

But I improvised details as they were asked for.  Of course, no one asked what the name of the village or world was.  They were only concerned about the goblins attacking.  And everyone had fun.  It just didn't have any relevance to the session at hand whether the village was in a kingdom, an elected democracy, or the dark empire of a lich.  I had enough time to come up with those details for next session or the session after, when, and if they came up.

My brother came up with a sandbox campaign where he built a world in advance.  And I admit, it was a lot of fun, there was all sorts of details there that I could never have come up with on the fly.  He's a really good DM and I loved that game.  But it took him a good couple of months without a job, hanging around the house writing up details to come up with that much background.  I could never do that.  I don't have any desire to do that even if I had the time.  I really don't have a problem with worldbuilding as an activity, and it does add to games.  I just don't see it as necessary.  It also takes a lot of time.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 31, 2009)

One can do world building by improvisation. Start small, and create what you need - and keep it. Note down what you did, and after the first campaign you have a decent proto-setting. The next campaign can build on that, maybe start in another area, build that up, then tie the two together.

After a few campaigns you'll have a complete setting, with details, and didn't "waste" time doing it.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 31, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> ...snip
> 
> I really don't have a problem with worldbuilding as an activity, and it does add to games.  I just don't see it as necessary.  It also takes a lot of time.




First, thanks for actually answering the question as opposed to avoiding it or deflecting back at me.  Second neither I or anyone else arguing for worldbuilding ever said it was "necessary", as I have said before even a story isn't necessary to just play the game.  However you've made a distinction that others such as Hussar have been unable to make for some reason and that is the fact that it can add to the game and isn't necessarily a waste of time. 

 I've run games like you describe, in fact that's exactly how our C&C game is going right now... but my players know the difference between a world I've fleshed out and one that is being improvised on the fly... they've told me as much.  My thing is that if given the time and inclination my worldbuilding adds to the game in a positive manner, whether that is enough to justify the time spent on it is a subjective as opposed to objective thing and hus, IMO, stating worldbuilding is "wankery" or a "time waste" isn't objective truth at all.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 31, 2009)

rounser said:


> This has nothing do so with what I said.
> 
> To reiterate, macro-level setting material for it's own sake is unlikely to impact play enough to justify the time and effort many DMs spend on it.  But it can be rewarding in itself, even if it is often an inefficient use of prep time in terms of running a game...thus, the "wankery" term.  It's best not to fool yourself with regard to it's actual utility in terms of prepping for a game, IMO.




Hey rounser this is a great *opinion* about why worldbuilding doesn't work for you but really, you should stop stating it in a manner that suggests it's objective truth... when it's not.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 31, 2009)

Too many try to tell others what's badwrongfun these days. People should start to understand that not everyone has the same taste, and that not everything is a mathematical fact.


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 31, 2009)

rounser said:


> To reiterate, macro-level setting material for it's own sake is unlikely to impact play enough to justify the time and effort many DMs spend on it.  But it can be rewarding in itself, even if it is often an inefficient use of prep time in terms of running a game...thus, the "wankery" term.  It's best not to fool yourself with regard to it's actual utility in terms of prepping for a game, IMO.




It really depends on the players. If you have explorer types in the game, who love to see giant maps of the world and all the nations, then the argument that the game doesn't benefit falls short. Similarly, if your players don't care about anything but the next fight, then even giving an adventure's master villain a _name_ is "wankery." The players won't care what his name is or what he's trying to accomplish, only what his stat block is likely to be like and how they can overcome his challenges. You can't really argue what's efficient and inefficient use of prep time without knowing what the players bite at. I've had players who would drive other GMs I've known absolutely nuts because they're in the game for exploration and social interaction first, slaying evil second, and carrying off loot a distant third. If you haven't done enough "wankery," your game isn't that appealing to them.

The thing is, it seems like this whole question hangs on the idea that world-building is somehow "taking away from useful design," and I'm not yet convinced that it is. I tend to see it expressed as another facet of the hobby, like painting miniatures or watching sword-and-sorcery flicks or reading the latest Giant Installment In A Fantasy Dodecalogy or being a player in another game. They're all examples of a person taking some "me time" in the hobby, and I'm not at all convinced that doesn't generally have a beneficial effect on the game. If nothing else, it helps prevent burnout.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 31, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> All comes back to one of the cardinal rules of gaming: play with people who like what you like.



Or take the players preferences into account when running your setting.

It's really irrelevant how (over) detailed my setting is. What matters is how I run it for a particular group of people. If I bury them in unwanted information then it's a bad thing.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 31, 2009)

rounser said:


> This has nothing do so with what I said.



Hmmm.. did you forget you posted this?



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> But macro-level wankery is the rule, and yes, it's bizarre (until you consider the psychology behind why that might be).




Yes, world-building aficionado's just might like to play God, just as scrawny/fat IT professionals just might like to play swarthy, powerful men of action, and while it's fair to call both pursuits bizarre, it's also true they form the backbone of this hobby... 



> To reiterate, macro-level setting material for it's own sake is unlikely to impact play enough to justify the time and effort many DMs spend on it.  But it can be rewarding in itself...



That fact that people find it rewarding is the justification. 



> even if it is often an inefficient use of prep time in terms of running a game...



Adventure prep-time and setting design-time seldom overlap for me. I don't use preplanned campaign arcs. I write adventures --such as they are-- in response to PC actions. 



> ... thus, the "wankery" term.



Nothing wrong with calling world-building wankery. Of course, there's nothing wrong with _wankery_. 



> It's best not to fool yourself with regard to it's actual utility in terms of prepping for a game, IMO.



It's useful to me, and the two other co-DM's in our group.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 31, 2009)

Fenes said:


> One can do world building by improvisation. Start small, and create what you need - and keep it. Note down what you did, and after the first campaign you have a decent proto-setting. The next campaign can build on that, maybe start in another area, build that up, then tie the two together.
> 
> After a few campaigns you'll have a complete setting, with details, and didn't "waste" time doing it.




Yes, absolutely you can do this.

and, I'm going to lump Imaro's post in here too just to answer both of you:



Imaro said:


> First, thanks for actually answering the question as opposed to avoiding it or deflecting back at me.  Second neither I or anyone else arguing for worldbuilding ever said it was "necessary", as I have said before even a story isn't necessary to just play the game.  However you've made a distinction that others such as Hussar have been unable to make for some reason and that is the fact that it can add to the game and isn't necessarily a waste of time.
> 
> I've run games like you describe, in fact that's exactly how our C&C game is going right now... but my players know the difference between a world I've fleshed out and one that is being improvised on the fly... they've told me as much.  My thing is that if given the time and inclination my worldbuilding adds to the game in a positive manner, whether that is enough to justify the time spent on it is a subjective as opposed to objective thing and hus, IMO, stating worldbuilding is "wankery" or a "time waste" isn't objective truth at all.




Hang on.  I've repeatedly said that you can world build and create good games.  I've stated that numerous times IN THIS THREAD.  Of course you can build a campaign this way.  Hell, every friggin' DM for years has been doing it this way.  I never, ever said that you couldn't do it.

What I did say is that IMO, your time would be better served NOT DOING IT THAT WAY.  That doesn't mean that you can't, or that it will not work, or that it is always bad or anything like that.

What I am saying is that there might be a better way of doing it.  I never said any badwrongfun stuff.  You guys added all that yourselves.  Ok, I did use the term setting wankery in the original post that sparked all this, and I came on too strong, but, jeez, get over it.  I've repeatedly stated that I appreciate the work that goes into world building and that it can be a fantastic thing.

I just don't like the fact that it pretty much gets touted as the single best way of doing it.  Heck, the 3e DMG puts it as the first step in campaign building.  I'm pretty sure the other DMG's do as well.  I disagree with this.

Imaro, let me ask you a question then.  You said that you are going to take 6 months developing your game world.  Not that you have to, but you are going to.  If your game, for whatever reason, died tomorrow, would you feel comfortable starting that campaign next week?  If not, how long would it be before you would feel comfortable starting to write adventures for that campaign world?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 31, 2009)

For those keeping score at home, here's a selection of my own posts, pointing out that I wasn't just screaming from the mountaintops that world building is bad.



Hussar said:


> This is a very different approach than what has traditionally been advocated by a great number of people in the hobby.  Heck, even the various Dungeon Master Guides include fairly lengthy sections on world building.  The typical advice is either top down or bottom up, but, in the end it's generally, "build the setting first, then figure out what kind of adventures go on in that setting."
> 
> I really do disagree with that approach.  I think a far better approach, and much better advice to new DM's out there, is "start with a story.  Think about what events would be important to that story.  Then, start building from there."  Even if the story is just, "Go out and see what's over that next hill", it's better to start from the story angle than to design the other side of the hill and then work backwards.






Hussar said:


> I fully endorse this.  And thank you for toning down my rhetoric.
> /snip
> 
> Not that world building is necessarily bad.  And, sorry Imaro, reading my own posts, I can see why you would think that I think that.  I have no real beef with world building in and of itself.  I just think that its place in campaign creation has been too ... errr ... pronounced over the years.  It has been enshrined into the collective minds of gamers and I really question whether it should be.






Hussar said:


> /snip
> Look, maybe I'm stating it too strongly, that's fine.  I'm just trying to point out that the common wisdom that you have to do this sort of thing isn't quite (IMNSHO) true.  That you don't need to spend that much time doing world building before you start a campaign.  That the time you spend world building might be better spent (see the conditional there?  Everyone happy) in detailing the events of the campaign, rather than on detailing elements that only the DM sees.
> 
> /snip
> ...






Hussar said:


> /snip
> Again, I'm not saying world building is bad.  It's not.  It can be tons of fun.  I just believe that a DM's efforts could be better directed.  That spending time and effort detailing elements on the off chance that the players might go somewhere is doing a disservice to the ongoing campaign.  And I think the advice that is typically served up to new DM's is also misleading.  It places too much emphasis on world building and not enough on focusing on campaign.






Hussar said:


> /snip
> 
> I am absolutely in awe of people who do create these huge intricate worlds.  Fargoth, for example, is the result of god knows how many hundreds, if not thousands of man hours of work.  That's damn impressive.  But, in the end, to me it's a ship in a bottle. It's the model train set.  It's the Death Star made of Lego.  Very, very impressive, wonderful work, but, ultimately just something that you look at.
> 
> Now, I realize that there are different opinions out there.  And, regardless of my over the top statements earlier, I can certainly appreciate the work and effort that goes into them.  I'm simply trying to say that there might, maybe, be a better way.




Phew, just went through my posts in this thread.  Except for a brief tangent on the comparative value of completely disconnected random events in a campaign, I've added a disclaimer onto almost every single one of my posts stating that I do NOT think world building is the worst thing you could ever do.  I actually do say that world building does work several times.

That you, Imaro, choose to pick and choose what points to respond to is not my fault.  I've repeatedly stated that world building is fine.  I've also repeatedly stated that IN MY OPINION the game would be better served to pull back  on world building and focus more attention on campaign and story. 

What I have not stated, ever, in this thread, is that world building is absolutely a bad thing and no one should ever do it.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 31, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I will disagree here, the more work I put into worldbuilding the better my chances are that #2 becomes #1.  As an example, let's say in Gulmenghast the PC's are investigating a rash of kidnappings, now somehow they get it in to their head that one of the Hundred Gods Cults is responsible... perhaps some of the Gray Man's followers.  Now if I've detailed the ward of Godshome and the temples within it (including the Grey Man's) then #2 is #1.



OK, if we're talking about that level of detail, then yes, I agree. If you're shooting for creating maps and encounter keys for every building (or even every major building) in your city before you start the campaign, then you'll be one very prepared DM. I wish you luck in getting to that point over the next 6 months. 



> I've run games like you describe, in fact that's exactly how our C&C game is going right now... but my players know the difference between a world I've fleshed out and one that is being improvised on the fly... they've told me as much.  My thing is that if given the time and inclination my worldbuilding adds to the game in a positive manner



My "problem" with worldbuilding (quotes because this is a personal thing, not meant to be read as a universal truth) is that my experience is pretty much the exact opposite of what you're describing. I find that in doing a lot of background work I usually wind up doing MORE improv at the table. Part of this is because if I'm doing more background work, it's because I'm trying to run a more sandbox style campaign and the PCs are choosing their own path from scratch rather than choosing from paths that I've given them. That's automatically going to lead to more improvisation. 

I also feel like I have to do more improvisation in order to keep the encounter areas from seeming shallow. Taking your example of the Gray Man's temple. If I were running that game and prepping for it as you describe, the temple would contain enough information for me to present a few encounters that would keep the PCs entertained, but it wouldn't have been developed originally to fit into whatever events are currently going on in the game and those kind of intricate plot tie-ins are things that I have difficulty coming up with off-the-cuff, so they would end up not being included. Whereas, if the Gray Man's temple was part of a more structured campaign that I developed specifically for that night's gaming session, I'd have plenty of time to fill it with significant encounters, items and events that tie into the ongoing campaign and give the players a lot to think about, give me plenty of seeds for future adventure hooks and campaign events and make the location really feel like it is an integral part of the world that the PCs have been exploring. I don't feel like I can do as good a job of that off-the-cuff as I can with a week or so to prepare specifically for that adventure beforehand.

If others can do that easily, that's great.  But I find that extensive worldbuilding in the context of a sandbox campaign tends to work against providing what I consider a good game, for me.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 31, 2009)

Hussar said:


> For those keeping score at home, here's a selection of my own posts, pointing out that I wasn't just screaming from the mountaintops that world building is bad.
> 
> Phew, just went through my posts in this thread.  Except for a brief tangent on the comparative value of completely disconnected random events in a campaign, I've added a disclaimer onto almost every single one of my posts stating that I do NOT think world building is the worst thing you could ever do.  I actually do say that world building does work several times.
> 
> ...




And when have I ever attributed the statement that "world building is absolutely a bad thing and no one should ever do it." to you, Hussar?  What I have argued against are your generalizations of it being a waste of time, or that campaigns *should* be plot-based and that worldbuilding is necessarily divorced from the act of actually playing the game.

I mean it's pretty easy to make it seem like you said whatever you want when you're selectively cutting and pasting your comments... Yeah, I noticed all the snips and parts that were left out.  I mean really are you honestly trying to play the victim role now?  Your posts are mostly like the person who apologizes by stating... "I'm so sorry you feel that way.".  

One minute you claim that worldbuilding isn't the worst thing you could do (which with the multitude of bad DM'ing moves one could make isn't saying much) but then in the same paragraph have no problem claiming it's a disservice to one's campaign, a time waste, or only something to look at (and here I thought it was something for my players to interact with).  But you're right none of these statements give the impression or insinuation that worldbuilding is a bad thing.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 31, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Imaro, let me ask you a question then.  You said that you are going to take 6 months developing your game world.  Not that you have to, but you are going to.  If your game, for whatever reason, died tomorrow, would you feel comfortable starting that campaign next week?  If not, how long would it be before you would feel comfortable starting to write adventures for that campaign world?




In all honesty, with what I have now, I would probably give myself two weeks.  I'd also be asking my players why the current campaign died since it's exactly the kind of campaign you're advocating and if it was because there wasn't enough meat to the world I might ask my players if they want to do some one shots until it's to the point where that wouldn't happen again... otherwise it's all a waste of time.


----------



## Kask (Mar 31, 2009)

Imaro said:


> But you're right none of these statements give the impression or insinuation that worldbuilding is a bad thing.




Don't get too worked up about it.  People can only opine based on their own experience.  Some people have less, or more, experience than others...


----------



## Scribble (Mar 31, 2009)

Kask said:


> Don't get too worked up about it.  People can only opine based on their own experience.  Some people have less, or more, experience than others...




Hrmmm I think I would say that people can only opine based on their own experienc(es.) Some people have different experiences then others which colors their opinion one way or another.


----------



## Kask (Mar 31, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Hrmmm I think I would say that people can only opine based on their own experienc(es.) Some people have different experiences then others which colors their opinion one way or another.




Yes, of course.  Someone who has been playing for 2 years would probably have a narrower spectrum of experiences to draw from than someone who has played for 30 years.  That is assumed in my statement.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 31, 2009)

Kask said:


> Yes, of course.  Someone who has been playing for 2 years would probably have a narrower spectrum of experiences to draw from than someone who has played for 30 years.  That is assumed in my statement.




Sure, and someone playing for 30 years could also have a different experience then someone else playing for 30 years- which colors his opinion in the same way that person playing for 2 years sees it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2009)

Hussar said:


> For those keeping score at home, here's a selection of my own posts, pointing out that I wasn't just screaming from the mountaintops that world building is bad.




Pulling back when people point out the problems with your posts, only to restate the same things later in different words, doesn't really make your posts (or your points) more logical overall.


RC


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 31, 2009)

As a theory as to why the game itself, as in books and articles, might emphasize world-building as something fun and interesting to do:

It's key to the hobby that running a game be fun. And I think the allure of world-building is a selling point for brand-new GMs. You want to make GMing something with lots of fun aspects to prep time, because otherwise it can be a daunting job. It's a similar principle to 4e design making things easier on the DM: without enthusiastic people running the game, you have fewer players acquired and retained.

Emphasis on world-building is an approach that encourages new GMs to give it a go. It's dangling a carrot of "hey, neat stuff to play with!", emphasizing the creative aspect to make the task more interesting than simply playing referee. Now, I certainly think there could also be some more discussion of how to plot an adventure, or tools to aid improvisational GMing, but world-building is probably a good inspirational hook to get newcomers to try running a game in the first place.

It's not guaranteed success, mind, but I think it's at least more responsible than dangling the carrot of "YOU HAVE THE POWER! THEY LIVE AND DIE AT YOUR WILL!"


----------



## Kask (Mar 31, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Sure, and someone playing for 30 years could also have a different experience then someone else playing for 30 years- which colors his opinion in the same way that person playing for 2 years sees it.




Possible, but a person who's played for 30 years will have far more diverse experiences to put a particular datum into perspective than someone who has played for 2 years.  That's the crux of the matter.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 31, 2009)

Kask said:


> Possible, but a person who's played for 30 years will have far more diverse experiences to put a particular datum into perspective than someone who has played for 2 years.  That's the crux of the matter.




Possibly, but they might have 30 years worth of similar data. 

When I read your statement it read as: Someone with more experience will have one opinion, someone with less will have another. 

I don't feel that to be true. It's not so much the length of time someone has experienced something, so much as the experiences they've had. The actual experience is more important then the length of time they've had experiencing it.

(It also doesn't seem to take into account that just because a particular experience was more prevailant 30 years ago, doesn't mean it will be today.)


----------



## Kask (Mar 31, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Possibly, but they might have 30 years worth of similar data.




Possibly but *highly* unlikely.


----------



## rounser (Mar 31, 2009)

> Hey rounser this is a great opinion about why worldbuilding doesn't work for you but really, you should stop stating it in a manner that suggests it's objective truth... when it's not.



Imaro, we've got 30 years of evidence, the failure of TSR as a company, and edition-sized "anti-fluff" backlashes that suggest you're wrong.  You can continue to stick your head in the sand on this issue, but no amount of worldbuilding you do will create a campaign players can actually _play_, until you drop the stuffing around and actually put some effort into making adventures.  If you improvise those, then perhaps they'd be much better if you cut back on the worldbuilding and invested time in something that actually has more to do with where the rubber meets the road.  I'm surprised and vaguely amused that you continue to split hairs on this issue, because it's patently obvious.

But I'm not going to get sucked much further into this sinkhole again.  Until you answer the questions I asked a page or two back about Keep on the Borderlands to define terms, there's no point in talking to you about this.  Detailing the Caves of Chaos may constitute worldbuilding to you, which would make this conversation pointless.  If you've run KotB (as you said you have, didn't you?) and weren't asleep when you did it you probably know what the Keep and the Caves are, if not the hermit.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 31, 2009)

rounser said:


> Imaro, we've got 30 years of evidence, the failure of TSR as a company, and edition-sized "anti-fluff" backlashes that suggest you're wrong.




I personally have 30 years of experience that more than suggests that you are wrong.

I am not at all certain how the failure of TSR as a company suggests Imaro is wrong.  Perhaps you can explain what this has to do with worldbuilding.  Certainly, 2e focused on adventures that were less sandbox-y than 1e (AFAICT, focused on adventures similar to those non-worldbuilders in this thread are advocating), had lots of crunch in various splats, and managed to stave off the end with fluff for a considerable time, even in light of poorly written railroads for adventures, a general decline in the hobby, and the advent of collectable games that TSR's offering simply didn't compete well with despite TSR throwing a heck of a lot of money into them.

I have never heard it suggested by anyone with any knowledge about the collapse of TSR that it had to do with worldbuilding.  Of course, you can continue to stick your head in the sand on this issue if you like, but your "evidence" simply isn't evidenciary.  


RC


----------



## Imaro (Mar 31, 2009)

rounser said:


> Imaro, we've got 30 years of evidence, the failure of TSR as a company, and edition-sized "anti-fluff" backlashes that suggest you're wrong.  You can continue to stick your head in the sand on this issue, but no amount of worldbuilding you do will create a campaign players can actually _play_, until you drop the stuffing around and actually put some effort into making adventures.  If you improvise those, then perhaps they'd be much better if you cut back on the worldbuilding and invested time in something that actually has more to do with where the rubber meets the road.  I'm surprised and vaguely amused that you continue to split hairs on this issue, because it's patently obvious.




What 30 years of evidence... so many factors contributed to TSR failing as a company, how does it in anyway constitute evidence to support anything you're claiming.  Also what edition-sized anti-fluff backlashes?  I mean honestly, does the continual low sales of modules support anti-adventure design backlash?  You're reaching for straws here.  Or is this another case of rounser's opinion being stated as fact...when it's not

As far as sticking my head in the sand, what am I hiding from?  The belief that worldbuilding is a waste of time...subjective. The belief that worldbuilding doesn't add anything significant to a game...again subjective.   Perhaps that time spent on worldbuilding could be better directed at "scripted"-adventure building... again subjective.  

I never claimed that adventure design was a waste of time or unnecessary, what I disagree with is that worldbuilding is an objectively lesser or unimportant part of campaign design.  You see in my worldbuilding I think up and give form to the hooks, sites, machinations and plots in an organic as opposed to "scripted" way. They develop naturally, and IMO more easily, from how I choose to structure the world.  I don't like going in and preparing with the thought process of...ok what do I want the PC's to do this weekend, but to each their own, just don't tell me what is or isn't a "better" way for everyone when it is clearly a "better" way for you.

Finally on the subject of other people's games and what they should do to improve them... I would suggest before offering advice on what could make someone's game better you actually sit down and play in one of their campaigns.  I mean I could say that I think if you spent more time on worldbuilding instead of "scripted"-adventure design that you might improve your game and your players might actually get a chance to choose the type of adventure they want in your world without you spoon feeding them the one you created the week before.  But before I made a statement like that I would definitely play in your game so I would be speaking in an informed manner as opposed to just speaking....  But that's just me.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 31, 2009)

rounser said:


> But I'm not going to get sucked much further into this sinkhole again.  Until you answer the questions I asked a page or two back about Keep on the Borderlands to define terms, there's no point in talking to you about this.  Detailing the Caves of Chaos may constitute worldbuilding to you, which would make this conversation pointless.  If you've run KotB (as you said you have, didn't you?) and weren't asleep when you did it you probably know what the Keep and the Caves are, if not the hermit.




Dude, I was like 9 when I ran KotB for my brother and cousin, I honestly don't remember it that well.  If I had a copy of it here cool, I would answer but do you honestly expect people to discuss specifics of design about something they barely remember and can't reference?  If so my answer is... I got nothing to say on it because I can't answer in an informed way.


----------



## Scribble (Apr 1, 2009)

Seems like everyone wants to make things binary all the time. Either it is something or it isn't. Either you're a worldbuilder or you're not. Either it's a good way to do something or it's not.  Blah.

Too little world building and I feel like I'm flying blind, or just bobbing around in a void.

Too much detail and I feel like a lot of effort goes to waste (because it never comes up) or it makes things too hard to ever use. 

I enjoy being somewhere in between. I have a rough outline of my "world" with some parts a little more rough then others, and some parts slightly more detailed then others. Some stuff gets filled in as we go, some stuff never comes up. Some stuff even gets revised as we go along.

This is how I even aproach premade campaign settings. I usually use them as a rough starting point for a campaign, and modify as needed during the campaign.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 1, 2009)

Sounds like a fine way to do things to me, Scribble.


----------



## Bacons (Apr 1, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I'd say it's a pervasive idea among the people who write fantasy and science fiction precisely because it's what the readership has demonstrated that it wants. Like I said, it's a (popular) genre convention. It's not something being foisted on the readers by misguided authors (which is kinda what I get from your statement... forgive me if that's inaccurate).




Oh, that wasn't what I was trying to say, sorry! I love a story set against an intricately built backdrop. It doesn't, however, help aspiring authors who probably need to be trying their hand at actually _completing_ a short story or improving their general writing craft to be told by their writing community that you can't write anything fantasy or SF unless you've built a massive world/universe and know everything about it. World-building is an asset if you do it well, but it can easily bog down an inexperienced author (or GM).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 1, 2009)

Having sold a few fantasy and sf short stories, and having read many books on the subject of writing them, I have no experience with being told "that you can't write anything fantasy or SF unless you've built a massive world/universe and know everything about it".  I rather wonder where this idea comes from.

What these books generally tell you is that you should have some idea of what the background is, and that you should choose a few details that both supply the necessary background and resonate with the theme.  Hard sf is, of course, a bit different.  Even so, I've never seen a book that suggest approaching world-building more carefully than plot-building or character-building.

Nor have I ever seen that sort of advice given to GMs in any rpg sourcebook anywhere.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Bacons (Apr 1, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Having sold a few fantasy and sf short stories, and having read many books on the subject of writing them, I have no experience with being told "that you can't write anything fantasy or SF unless you've built a massive world/universe and know everything about it".  I rather wonder where this idea comes from.




It comes from the dark underbelly of the internets!


edit to say: I had assumed this whole thing was arguing largely about the dedication to massive world-building in online communities, as that's the only place I've really seen it (in terms of both fiction and RPGs). Internet communities are all I was referencing in my previous post.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 1, 2009)

Imaro said:


> /snip
> 
> However you've made a distinction that others such as Hussar have been unable to make for some reason and that is the fact that it can add to the game and isn't necessarily a waste of time.






Imaro said:


> And when have I ever attributed the statement that "world building is absolutely a bad thing and no one should ever do it." to you, Hussar?  What I have argued against are your generalizations of it being a waste of time, or that campaigns *should* be plot-based and that worldbuilding is necessarily divorced from the act of actually playing the game.




Right here:



Imaro said:


> /snip
> 
> However you've made a distinction that others such as Hussar have been unable to make for some reason and that is the fact that it can add to the game and isn't necessarily a waste of time.






> I mean it's pretty easy to make it seem like you said whatever you want when you're selectively cutting and pasting your comments... Yeah, I noticed all the snips and parts that were left out.  I mean really are you honestly trying to play the victim role now?  Your posts are mostly like the person who apologizes by stating... "I'm so sorry you feel that way.".
> 
> One minute you claim that worldbuilding isn't the worst thing you could do (which with the multitude of bad DM'ing moves one could make isn't saying much) but then in the same paragraph have no problem claiming it's a disservice to one's campaign, a time waste, or only something to look at (and here I thought it was something for my players to interact with).  But you're right none of these statements give the impression or insinuation that worldbuilding is a bad thing.




There is no contradiction here.  Just because I think something is better, does not mean that something else is bad.  Yes, *I* think that world building tends to lead to a huge time sink that could be better put to use.  I do think that.  But, better put to use does not mean that world building is useless.

The negative bits are on you, not me.  I'm saying that there may be a better way.  Several people are jumping up and down saying that I'm claiming that world building is badwrongfun and completely useless.  It's not.  I've stated that repeatedly.  Some people are now trying to claim that I'm too inexperienced to have an informed opinion.  At least, it looks like they are passive/aggressive pointing that at me.  If they aren't perhaps I'm being too sensitive.

If nothing else Kask, look at the join date.  Do you really think I joined and then never gamed for several years after that?  

What I'm trying to suggest is that there is a better way to campaign creation.  That by emphasizing world building, we've done a disservice to DM's who could better employ their efforts.  Not that you should NEVER do world building.  Or that world building is a complete waste of time.  

It's not.  Heck, there are multiple campaigns that attest to the value of world building.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 1, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> As a theory as to why the game itself, as in books and articles, might emphasize world-building as something fun and interesting to do:
> 
> It's key to the hobby that running a game be fun. And I think the allure of world-building is a selling point for brand-new GMs. You want to make GMing something with lots of fun aspects to prep time, because otherwise it can be a daunting job. It's a similar principle to 4e design making things easier on the DM: without enthusiastic people running the game, you have fewer players acquired and retained.
> 
> ...




And I can accept that.  It certainly appears to be the common wisdom.  Between sourcebooks, the DMG, Dungeon, and any number of blogs and whatnot, people put world building at the top of the list for starting a new campaign.

Note, I do not equate a lack of world building with improv GMing.  That only becomes equal if you assert that all setting creation comes under the umbrella of world building.  I disagree with that definition.

I think that the game would be better served if the section on Creating a Campaign in the DMG was organized differently.  Instead of putting World Building at the number one slot, put it down in the third or fourth slot.  Here's a bullet list of how I think it should look.  
Number one slot would be sitting down with your players and discussing/brainstorming what you want the next campaign to look like in very rough terms - themes, particular issues, amount of combat, that sort of thing.
Number 2 Background creation of the PC's.  Again, you cannot go too detailed here, but more look at the motivations of the PC's.  What do they want to do and how can you mesh that with what you want to do.
Number 3 Flesh out one beginning adventure and how to lay hooks for subsequent adventures.
Number 4 Start developing those hooks that the players want to pursue.
Number 5 Start developing broader level setting elements that might be of use.  (world building in other words)

Now, I'm not a professional writer and that shows.  I'm sure someone else could make that list look a lot better than what I came up with in 30 seconds.  But, I think that gets the gist across.


----------



## Aeolius (Apr 1, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> ...I have no experience with being told "that you can't write anything fantasy or SF unless you've built a massive world/universe and know everything about it".




Knowing everything about it? Where's the fun in that? My NPCs have secrets they have yet to share with me. DMing on the fly is as educational for me as it is for my players. I set the stage, my players perform their improv, and we all learn something from the experience.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 1, 2009)

Hussar said:


> And I can accept that.  It certainly appears to be the common wisdom.  Between sourcebooks, the DMG, Dungeon, and any number of blogs and whatnot, people put world building at the top of the list for starting a new campaign.



And for what I would suggest is a pretty good reason: unless you as DM are planning on using a pre-gen setting without modification, you need to - at some point - build enough of a world that the campaign has something to sink its teeth into; and the best time to do so is before the campaign begins.  Most new (and, IME, some experienced) DMs might not realize this; and while they could run a perfectly good first adventure or two with nothing more than a town and a dungeon, the campaign thereafter is set up to crumble away as soon as it tries to expand its horizons.


> Note, I do not equate a lack of world building with improv GMing.  That only becomes equal if you assert that all setting creation comes under the umbrella of world building.  I disagree with that definition.



Setting creation *is* world building.  How can it not be?


> I think that the game would be better served if the section on Creating a Campaign in the DMG was organized differently.  Instead of putting World Building at the number one slot, put it down in the third or fourth slot.  Here's a bullet list of how I think it should look.
> [*]Number one slot would be sitting down with your players and discussing/brainstorming what you want the next campaign to look like in very rough terms - themes, particular issues, amount of combat, that sort of thing.



Fair enough, if you have experienced players.  If they're all new, however, I'd ignore this step as it's going to be a learn-as-you-go process no matter what.


> [*]Number 2 Background creation of the PC's.  Again, you cannot go too detailed here, but more look at the motivations of the PC's.  What do they want to do and how can you mesh that with what you want to do.



And to do this any justice, the players (and, by extension, you) need...wait for it...a world/setting!  Where was I born?  Where have I travelled?  Where does my race/culture/society live?  How did I end up here? This should be Number 5, and can sometimes be done well after the campaign starts.


> [*]Number 3 Flesh out one beginning adventure and how to lay hooks for subsequent adventures.
> 
> [*]Number 4 Start developing those hooks that the players want to pursue.
> 
> [*]Number 5 Start developing broader level setting elements that might be of use.  (world building in other words)



Your number 3 should be Number 1 or 2, and setting/world construction should be Number 2 or 1.  It is possible to combine the two: if your goal is to run Isle of Dread, it has half a world already included in the module.  Come up with a first adventure, drop the puck and go.

Lan-"we built this city - on rock and roll"-efan


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 1, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Setting creation *is* world building.  How can it not be?



Setting creation is inherently directed at the PCs and the actions they take. World building can be PC diercted, but doesn't have to be. That is the difference.



Lanefan said:


> And to do this *(that is, create character backgrounds)* any justice, the players (and, by extension, you) need...wait for it...a world/setting!  Where was I born?  Where have I travelled?  Where does my race/culture/society live?  How did I end up here? This should be Number 5, and can sometimes be done well after the campaign starts.



See, this is where the heart of the disagreement is. You do not need a world to create a character background. You do if you want to only choose from things that the DM provides for you. If players are allowed to come up with options, then no pre-established world created by the DM is necessary. Character backgound creates the setting, which becomes part of the world. Players and DM can create this together, usually toward the beginning of a campaign, but definitely not limited to the start of a campaign. The campaign is built around this, and this is why it is setting and not worldbuilding. Because it is PC and story driven. 

The crux of the dispute is basically that some people feel that a world should be created, and then characters can be created to inhabit it using choices provided by the DM/worldbuilder, and whatever these characters do becomes a story. This is fine if you are OK with the idea that only the DM can have a say in the initial options, and you want story and themes to emerge from the play within this established world. It inherently places the world in the center of the activity, and not the characters, and shifts a huge amount of the creative power and responsibility to the DM.

Others feel that the story and the characters should be placed at the center of the activity, and the world created around them. Goals are set first, and themes are created around these goals. Characters are created that capture the themes and are capable of fulfilling these goals. These characters are created with backgrounds. These backgrounds are used to help create the setting. The DM then creates a plot outline that will allow the players to accomplish the goal of play. The DM also fills in the setting enough to make the characters, plot, theme, and goals all fit together in a pleasing and consistent way. All setting creation is directed at fulfilling the goals of play by reinforcing theme, allowing characters to deepen, or forwarding the plot. Nothing else is necessary. Anything not directed at fulfilling the goals of play, reinforcing theme, deepening characterization, or forwarding the plot will actually lower the quality of play because it takes time away from the goals of play.

I can already hear people beating the Exploration drum. Yes, there are many people who want to explore a world. In fact, exploration is just one of many possible themes or goals, and the characters can be explorers that experience the plot of exploration. The problem is that this is just one type of theme or goal, and even if this a primary theme or goal or your group, extensive world building outside of playing is still not required for this goal. Exploration can be handled many ways, and extensive preplanned worlds are just the most popular way of pursuing the goal of exploration.

The king of all world builders is Tolkein. I love his stories. The thing is, he spent so much time worldbuilding that some of his writing actually kinda sucked. It was boring, containing histories and lineages that are not at all pertinent to the plot, the characters, or the themes of his works. His goal was world and language creation. These are not very fun for a lot of people. When people who are not nearly as talented at it as he is try to emulate his process, it sucks even more. If they were to stick to addressing the goals of play, reinforcing themes, allowing deep characterization, and forwarding plot, games could be created that are vastly greater in quality than much of what is produced. The most tragic part of this whole scenario is that addressing goals, reinforcing themes, allowing deep characterization, and forwarding plot are all easier and more straightforward than worldbuilding. It is unfortunate that most campaign creation advice ignores these things and sticks to worldbuilding advice.


----------



## rounser (Apr 1, 2009)

> I never claimed that adventure design was a waste of time or unnecessary, what I disagree with is that worldbuilding is an objectively lesser or unimportant part of campaign design. You see in my worldbuilding I think up and give form to the hooks, sites, machinations and plots in an organic as opposed to "scripted" way.



And this is why this conversation with you is pointless until you define what you mean by "worldbuilding".  To me, hooks = adventure design, sites populated at encounter level = adventure design, machinations and plots that will actually impact play = campaign arc design.  I'm pretty sure that this is why you disagree with Hussar and I - we're not talking about the same thing when we say "worldbuilding".  Now please define the scope of the term by answering my KotB questions, because asking whether the Keep (full of unnamed NPCs) is worldbuilding, adventure design etc., you don't have to know the module to answer.

In fact, I'll refresh your memory.  The Keep on the Borderlands has about three or four paragraphs of actual macro level worldbuilding, basically saying that chaos has been encroaching on the Realm of Law, which the Keep (a small castle) is on the borderlands of (i.e. the edge of the Realm).  The module details the Keep and it's inhabitants, guard posts and shops (but strangely, no NPCs are given names, only referred to by job title), a bit of wilderness with a mad hermit in it and a few other low level encounters, and the Caves of Chaos, a fully detailed dungeon on the map, full of various humanoid tribes and maybe a minotaur.  It's a very simple module.

Now you know pretty much all you need to answer those questions.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 1, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> /snip
> Setting creation *is* world building.  How can it not be?




Here is where we disagree through this entire thread.  PrecociousApprentice says it better than I can, and if I could give him XP I would.  Well done that man.


> /snip
> 
> And to do this any justice, the players (and, by extension, you) need...wait for it...a world/setting!  Where was I born?  Where have I travelled?  Where does my race/culture/society live?  How did I end up here? This should be Number 5, and can sometimes be done well after the campaign starts.
> Your number 3 should be Number 1 or 2, and setting/world construction should be Number 2 or 1.  It is possible to combine the two: if your goal is to run Isle of Dread, it has half a world already included in the module.  Come up with a first adventure, drop the puck and go.




See, here is where I disgree.  Where was I born?  Who cares?  Where have I travelled?  Not important right now.  I'm not interested in the minutia of your character yet.  That comes later.  Right now, I'm looking at higher level stuff.  What interests you?  What do you want to do?  What are your goals?  

That you were born in color animal inn has no bearing on that.  Fill in the proper nouns later.



> Lan-"we built this city - on rock and roll"-efan




Imaro - a question.  You said you need two weeks before you'd feel comfortable running your new campaign.  Can I assume you've done a week of work previous to this as well?  For the sake of argument, I won't.  I'll assume that you can get off the ground in 2 weeks.  

Can you estimate how many man hours of work that would be?  And, could you estimate what you would get done in that time?  Would it be possible for you to give a short bullet list of what elements for you new campaign you would have to complete before you'd feel comfortable running the game?


----------



## Kask (Apr 1, 2009)

Hussar said:


> If nothing else Kask, look at the join date.  Do you really think I joined and then never gamed for several years after that?




2004?  So?  Are you saying that's when you started playing?


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 1, 2009)

Hussar said:


> And I can accept that.  It certainly appears to be the common wisdom.  Between sourcebooks, the DMG, Dungeon, and any number of blogs and whatnot, people put world building at the top of the list for starting a new campaign.




Well, to some extent. I see plenty of other people talking about all kinds of aspects of the game, because people write about what gets them excited about running a game. Some write about recapturing the feel of nostalgic gaming. Some write about plots. Some write about characterization. And many write about world-building. 

One of the things about world-building that no doubt makes it so popular is that it's work that can endure from campaign to campaign. For example, let's say a GM has designed a world with, among other things, some notes on a 20-year ongoing war between two nations. If a game directly involving that war crashes and burns, and the players want to do something different elsewhere, the GM can set a new game elsewhere in the world. Maybe the events of the war influence the campaign. Maybe they don't. But the _big_ allure of building large settings is that you don't have to design a new pantheon of gods when you start up a new campaign, or come up with more place names, or the like. The time already invested is still there. 

World-building — and here note that I am including the player contributions to an ongoing world, and the events they cause that shape said world — is about legacy. New campaigns set in the same world can enjoy the legacies of campaigns that came before. There's a shared sense of history and background. Done poorly, it can be incestuous or repetitive: done _right_, it makes a game more plausible because it's familiar. It references good old memories when you find out with other characters what Bigby's been up to, or wind up crossing paths with Prince Thrommel, or finally get to play that paladin of St. Cuthbert you've wanted to do ever since your last mage wound up bickering with the church over in Hardby. 

It shouldn't be the only priority. But I think it's easy to understate just how much pleasure both players and GM can take from even a modest amount of world-building that doesn't directly derive from their immediate adventures. It's rather like calling elves vastly overrated: to a given group that's certainly true, but if you look at fantasy gaming overall the utility of elves in getting players to take an interest in an aspect of the game is undeniable.



> I think that the game would be better served if the section on Creating a Campaign in the DMG was organized differently.  Instead of putting World Building at the number one slot, put it down in the third or fourth slot.




I see your point. I don't fully agree with it, though. Rather, I think adventure creation should be addressed separately from campaign creation. It requires different levels of "zoom", different skill sets to some extent, and different levels of investment. Some people might run brilliant adventures but all-but-ignore campaigns; conversely, I had quite a lot of enjoyable gaming with a GM in college who was very negligent about plotted "adventures" but had a campaign that kept his players immensely busy with politics and social interaction alone. And as I've said before, I don't think the two disciplines are very often in conflict. They scratch different itches; world-building feeds the inspiration that is necessary for the perspiration.

I think of it this way: If the two of them were in direct competition for brainspace, this argument would probably be something like "Why do so many people think world-building is more fun than adventure building?" Instead, we're talking about the utility of world-building, and the argument for less world-building usually focuses down on "utility to what we are doing this exact moment," ruling out potential utility should characters do unpredictable things, or should a campaign implode and a new one begin in the same world, or even just as a mental exercise that gets the DM as pumped to start designing adventures as watching a fantastic blockbuster. 

To me, it's like the difference between keeping a sketchbook and working on paintings. Filling the sketchbook may or may not have anything to do with the painting currently on your easel. Some artists might never sketch anywhere but on the blank canvas. But for other artists, that sketchbook is vital to the process. Take it away, and you aren't necessarily going to find them spending more time in front of the easel, much less ensure you get a better painting out of it. Running games, like visual art, is a creative process. And creative processes are extremely individual things.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 1, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Imaro - a question.  You said you need two weeks before you'd feel comfortable running your new campaign.  Can I assume you've done a week of work previous to this as well?  For the sake of argument, I won't.  I'll assume that you can get off the ground in 2 weeks.
> 
> Can you estimate how many man hours of work that would be?  And, could you estimate what you would get done in that time?  Would it be possible for you to give a short bullet list of what elements for you new campaign you would have to complete before you'd feel comfortable running the game?




Ok, the 10 things I would want to have completed in two weeks...

NOTE:  I am assuming that I have presented a brief summary of Gulmenghast (perhaps a page long) to my players and it is met with approval as a place they want to adventure in...

1. The racial write-ups how they relate to one another, attitudes towards 
    each other and differences from the generic PHB descriptions... (as an 
    example in Gulmenghast Shifters, Genasi, and Tieflings are the result of    
    long-forgotten alchemical and arcane gene-modification of humans with    
    the essences of beasts, elementals and devils that arose in response to 
    the invasion of these peoples lands by the Dragonborn Empire thus there 
    is an ancient enmity between these groups) 
2. General descriptions of the 7 wards and The Severed Realms
3. Map of The Pinched Quarter with encounter charts 
4. Fleshed out maps of The Quivering Catacombs,  Badger Bayham's Brew   
    and Breakfast, Miss Skifin's General Tradehouse and Emporium, The  
    Shrouded Bath House, and The Gate Towers (Have no problem stealing  
    maps off the internet to cut down on work...  )
5. General description of the two religious orders in Gulmenghast
6. List of Major NPC's w/stats (mostly re-skinned from MM, again to cut 
    down work)
7. Macro-level government of city in broad strokes
8. Macro-level political structure of The Pinched Quarter
9. The stats for the Lawbringer's stationed in The Gate Towers
10. 10 secrets; one for each Ward and 3 on a micro-level for The Pinched 
     Quarter

Now, I have a job, a child and am preparing to get married in September, so I don't have a ton of time... that said I enjoy working on my campaign and I generally devote an hour to an hour and a half before I go to sleep to working on my wiki. So total man hours is somewhere between 7 hours and 20 hours to complete the above... so less than an actual day out of 2 weeks.

Honestly Hussar, I find (and I am assuming here) what you call "adventure" design doesn't take that long unless I choose to do it from scratch without using all the maps, stats, monsters, traps, etc. that are widely available in the books and on the internet.  The actual world I'm creating for these adventures to take place in, it's consistency, verisimilitude and logic are things I can't grab pre-made and tweak.  I also find that the more fully fleshed out my world is the better informed I am as to the specific tweaks I should make to give it a Gulmenghast feel as opposed to a generic high-fantasy setting 6432577 feel.  YMMV and all that of course.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 1, 2009)

Ourph said:


> My "problem" with worldbuilding (quotes because this is a personal thing, not meant to be read as a universal truth) is that my experience is pretty much the exact opposite of what you're describing. I find that in doing a lot of background work I usually wind up doing MORE improv at the table. Part of this is because if I'm doing more background work, it's because I'm trying to run a more sandbox style campaign and the PCs are choosing their own path from scratch rather than choosing from paths that I've given them. That's automatically going to lead to more improvisation.



This is where I've been going with this as well.  Given my complete lack of desire to prep before even starting a campaign, no matter how much time I have before I run the first session, I'm unlikely to spend more than an hour or two in real preparation.

If I spend that 2 hours making up the laws of the country, the names of the rulers, the names of all the inns in the city, the descriptions of the insides of all the temples, and so on...I simply won't have any time left in order to think what the actual adventure will be.  I'm likely to improvise the plot on the fly.  All my battles are going to be thrown together groups of monsters.

But if I spend the time I have thinking about where the PCs are when the game starts, what the plot hook is, who the villain is, what encounters will they come across on the way to saving the day and defeating the villain...then I have what appears to be a lot more prepared and detailed game to my players.  I will have a description of the places that the PCs go, and they'll suspect I have descriptions of everywhere.  When the truth is, I have descriptions of the 3 locations I expected them to go during the first session.  I'll have battle areas that look planned out and monsters that work well together and compliment each other's strengths to make them more interesting to fight.

When I start with worldbuilding, I pretty much always feel like I'm on my heels, trying to keep up with the PCs, hoping I'll be able to come up with some interesting ideas on the fly to keep them interested.  I hate the feeling of improvising.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 1, 2009)

Kask said:


> 2004?  So?  Are you saying that's when you started playing?




No Kask, that is not what I'm saying.  What I am saying is that if my join date is five years ago, then perhaps, just maybe, I've been gaming for AT LEAST five years.  The fact that I started gaming in 1980 is beside the point.  I generally find that getting into pissing contests and trying to appeal to authority doesn't help in these discussions.  Anyone who is feeling that their points are so inadequate that they require bolstering by telling all and sundry how long they've been gaming should possibly go back and rework their arguments.

Just a thought.



Imaro said:


> Ok, the 10 things I would want to have completed in two weeks...
> 
> NOTE:  I am assuming that I have presented a brief summary of Gulmenghast (perhaps a page long) to my players and it is met with approval as a place they want to adventure in...
> 
> ...




A couple of points here.  First one is, please stop with the strawman that if you don't do world building you are forced to have "generic high-fantasy setting 6432577" and I'll stop calling it setting wankery.  Deal? 

Second, let's not lose sight of the fact that your campaign setting is very small.  You're limiting yourself to one city.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  It sounds interesting, but, it does cut down on the work load.

But, in any case, let's split the difference on your time estimate and call it 15 hours.  15 hours of work to detail one small setting all before you sit down to do a single adventure.  Granted, you've got a couple of locations here to play with, at least you have maps of them, but you have not statted a single encounter, nor created a single adventure.  Say that's another 3-5 hours of work for a decent sized adventure.

See, right there, that's my problem with the idea of world building first.  You've spent a fair bit of time, and yes, I do think spending 15 hours (give or take) on preparing to start writing adventures is a long time.  

And, to boot, you have only the barest bones of setting here anyway.  This is just the start.  You have several hours of work ahead of you to add any really meaningful detail to most of these sections.  Right now, beyond a very small handful of points, would you call this a fully fleshed out setting?  I certainly wouldn't.

/disclaimer - the following is a joke, please take it as a joke

What happens when your players want to meet the thieves guild 

/end joke.


----------



## Kask (Apr 1, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I will have a description of the places that the PCs go, and they'll suspect I have descriptions of everywhere.  When the truth is, I have descriptions of the 3 locations I expected them to go during the first session.  I'll have battle areas that look planned out and monsters that work well together and compliment each other's strengths to make them more interesting to fight.




That approach works very well at low levels.  At mid-high level, it falls to pieces rapidly.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 1, 2009)

Bastarondo said:
			
		

> I see your point. I don't fully agree with it, though. Rather, I think adventure creation should be addressed separately from campaign creation. It requires different levels of "zoom", different skill sets to some extent, and different levels of investment. Some people might run brilliant adventures but all-but-ignore campaigns; conversely, I had quite a lot of enjoyable gaming with a GM in college who was very negligent about plotted "adventures" but had a campaign that kept his players immensely busy with politics and social interaction alone. And as I've said before, I don't think the two disciplines are very often in conflict. They scratch different itches; world-building feeds the inspiration that is necessary for the perspiration.




That's certainly true.  I do think that world building approaches do work.  Heck, I know they work, I've seen them work, I've played in them and I've done them as well.  If this conversation was happening about 5 years ago, I'd be 100% on your side of the fence on this.

What changed, for me anyway, was a dawning realization of a couple of things.  One, very few players ever invest even a fraction of the interest in the setting that the DM does.  They invest in the story, they invest in the campaign, but, as far as the setting goes, most of the players I've played with aren't terribly concerned with it beyond how it affects their character.

What I realized was that when I was designing campaigns, I'd have all these ideas for the setting - background, history, geography, etc.  I'd do research into whatever elements I thought would help, I'd spend hours and hours trying to build my next world.  And, inevitably, the stresses of trying to do that AND come up with next week's material for the session burned me out.  

And I also found that this happened to many of the DM's I played with as well.  So many of them would talk about how their games would fizzle after a few months or maybe a year, sometimes due to various factors, but, burnout seemed to be a pretty common one.

So, I started scaling WAYYYY back on how much world building I did, and focused much more attention on adventure creation - both linear and non-linear - and I found my campaigns worked a whole lot better.

Let me go off on a bit of a tangent here.

One of my absolute favoritest 3e book is Mystic Eye Games' Urban Blight.  Fantastic book.  Worth every penny.  In it, it details 20 urban locations that you can drop into pretty much any setting with a bit of tweaking.  They give a bit of history of each location, but primarily focus on each location as a place for adventures to occur.  The bar has a slaving operation underneath, the wizard's mansion features a crazy wizard who captures people in clocks, that sort of thing.

Not that the locations are modules.  They aren't.  They are nowhere near that scripted.  It's more like, "Here is this location, here are a few people at this location, here are half a dozen plot seeds for that location".  

Now, compare that to most city setting books you buy for any given setting.  You get five to ten pages of city history.  A map with numbered locations.  Each location has a paragraph or two of what the location is, maybe has the stats for the owner and that's about it.  Tons of high altitude stuff - history, background, that sort of thing - but it's now pretty much entirely up to the individual DM to start creating adventures.

Not every setting book does this mind you.  Ptolus for one does not.  Freeport also includes adventure hooks for its locations.  Ravens Bluff had their Points of Interest.   Fantastic stuff and I wish more publishers went in that direction.

So, certainly you can go the direction of the standard setting book.  Lots of background, history and whatnot.  It works.  It's certainly tried and true.  I'm just trying to offer an alternative that I personally think works better.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 1, 2009)

Hussar said:


> A couple of points here.  First one is, please stop with the strawman that if you don't do world building you are forced to have "generic high-fantasy setting 6432577" and I'll stop calling it setting wankery.  Deal?




Where did I state a strawman?  I'm sorry but that's how I feel most pre-made adventures, and rightly so since they must sell to as wide a range of people as possible, feel like unless you take the time to personalize them for your game.  I think your reading more into it than is there.



Hussar said:


> Second, let's not lose sight of the fact that your campaign setting is very small.  You're limiting yourself to one city.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  It sounds interesting, but, it does cut down on the work load.




So there's a standard size a world must be to qualify for your argument?  Maybe that's just a bad assumption.



Hussar said:


> But, in any case, let's split the difference on your time estimate and call it 15 hours.  15 hours of work to detail one small setting all before you sit down to do a single adventure.  Granted, you've got a couple of locations here to play with, at least you have maps of them, but you have not statted a single encounter, nor created a single adventure.  Say that's another 3-5 hours of work for a decent sized adventure.




I did state I would detail (by reskinning) the major monsters and NPC's of these environments.  Second, are you telling me it takes you 3-5 hours to create an adventure in 4e... are you serious?  To me one of the easiest parts of 4e is making a combat encounter on the fly by reskinning monsters and adding up XP... especially if you have tables detailing what is found in a particular area. Since the maps are fleshed out anything outside of combat (hazards, traps, terrain) should be covered.  I don't need a scripted adventure because the PC's will interact with things and create an adventure from the pieces that have been laid out before them.  



Hussar said:


> See, right there, that's my problem with the idea of world building first.  You've spent a fair bit of time, and yes, I do think spending 15 hours (give or take) on preparing to start writing adventures is a long time.




Uhm... but I have less work to do as the game progresses and more freedom for my players than if I had started wth only one option for their "adventure"... that's my problem with "scripted" adventures.  I have numerous places, people, and things for them to interact with in a logical and consistent manner, more than enough to run quite a few game nights and by the time it reaches a point where they're exhausted... I'll have even more.   Starting out my PC's can explore the mutant-ridden depths of the Quivering Catacombs, become enemies or seek employment with the Lawbringers, come into conflict with or work for The Faceless Man's lieutenants who run crime in The Pinched Quarter through The Shrouded Bath House,  haggle and buy goods, get robbed, or hire on as bodyguards amongst the numerous merchant's tents and stalls set up in the Tradehouse or seek out room & board, rumors, employment, and information at the Brew and Breakfast.  They're mapped, I have the Mjr NPC's and monsters stated and a random encounter table for The Pinched Quarter.   



Hussar said:


> And, to boot, you have only the barest bones of setting here anyway.  This is just the start.  You have several hours of work ahead of you to add any really meaningful detail to most of these sections.  Right now, beyond a very small handful of points, would you call this a fully fleshed out setting?  I certainly wouldn't.




I knew this was coming, you propose a situation where I have the minimum material I would need... then go look, you only have the minimum material needed... Yeah, ok whatever.

The funny thing is that I have set up more choices and varied opportunities for my PC's  than are offered by your single adventure.  And since you claim it takes you 5 to 6 hours to create an adventure... that means with the same time spent on adventures, that I spent worldbuilding, you could have 2 to 3 scripted adventures ready, I've cited above only a handful of the things the PC's can explore and interact with in a single part of my world and it certainly presents the material necessary for more than 3 adventures without dictating what my PC's will do.



Hussar said:


> /disclaimer - the following is a joke, please take it as a joke
> 
> What happens when your players want to meet the thieves guild
> 
> /end joke.




The Faceless Man's lieutenants run organized crime (drugs, prostitution, extortion, larceny, etc.) in The Pinched Quarter out of The Shrouded Bath House.  Or did you expect him to have a building with the words "Thieve's Guild is Right Here" carved into it ??


----------



## Ourph (Apr 1, 2009)

Kask said:


> That approach works very well at low levels.  At mid-high level, it falls to pieces rapidly.



That's not been my experience at all. As long as the players are on board with the "If you want to do something outside the current campaign context, give the DM some advance notice"-guideline, everything works just fine.


----------



## rounser (Apr 1, 2009)

> I have numerous places, people, and things for them to interact with in a logical and consistent manner



This is usually termed adventure design, if you can actually interact with it.  Will you please define terms and answer those questions, because discussing worldbuilding with you is a waste of time unless we know what you want it to mean.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 1, 2009)

rounser said:


> This is usually termed adventure design, if you can actually interact with it.  Will you please define terms and answer those questions, because discussing worldbuilding with you is a waste of time unless we know what you want it to mean.




How about you're the only one who keeps harping on this "exact definition" thing... yet have given none yourself.  How about you state what you believe and answer the questions yourself... because otherwise discussing worldbuilding with you is a waste of time unless we know what you want it to mean.

As far as your statement above, let me put it this way. IMO a building in and of itself is not an adventure. A building with a fully fleshed out inside is not an adventure.  a building with a fully fleshed out inside and npc's that are fully fleshed out is not an adventure.  A building with a fuly fleshed out interior, npc's and notes on their activities isn't an adventure.  All it is is a component of the world (ala worldbuilding) unless the PC's choose to interact with it in some meaningful way.  

You see it's not an adventure and thus not part of "adventure design" because there's no given plot or certainty for it ever being interacted with in any way by the PC's.   

I mean honestly what can't you interact with in a campaign world (unless your DM specifically forbids it)?  According to your definition, no matter how remote the chance... every NPC I might possibly talk to, pantheon or deity I might possibly offend, monster whose path I just might cross, shopkeeper I may haggle with, land I could ever visit, etc. is not part of worldbuilding but adventure design... so please explain to me what your version of worldbuilding actually allows for.


----------



## Kask (Apr 1, 2009)

Ourph said:


> As long as the players are on board with the "If you want to do something outside the current campaign context, give the DM some advance notice"-guideline, everything works just fine.




Like I said, it falls to pieces rapidly.  Playing in little predefined boxes (you can't use high level spells unless you give advanced notice to DM) isn't a good campaign style.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 1, 2009)

Kask said:


> Like I said, it falls to pieces rapidly.  Playing in little predefined boxes (you can't use high level spells unless you give advanced notice to DM) isn't a good campaign style.




You can't use high-level spells unless you've given the DM advanced notice. 

A wizard must research his spells before hand. Which means he must find a tutor or a scroll to copy from. Ergo, he needs to tell the DM he's looking for said magic. He doesn't magically gain a scroll because he gained a level...

Sorcerers too, must seek to research any spell not in the PHB.

As for clerics and other divines, they must ask at the time of spell-selection if their god will grant it to them ("No, the god of ice will NOT grant you flamestrike!").

But more to your point, I don't see where it is unreasonable to ask players "what do you want to do next session" so I can prepare. If things change duing the game, I'll wing it. Otherwise, they typically stick to plan because they know the game is better with a little prep than if I'm pulling stuff out my kiester...


----------



## Kask (Apr 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> You can't use high-level spells unless you've given the DM advanced notice.




Umm, wrong.  A player can't obtain them without DM permission.  Casting them (teleport, scry, etc.) if you have them, is a different matter and is only a problem if the DM hasn't properly prepared the campaign world ahead of time.  Which of course leads us back to, world building.  Funny how that works...


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 2, 2009)

Kask said:


> Umm, wrong.  A player can't obtain them without DM permission.  Casting them (teleport, scry, etc.) if you have them, is a different matter and is only a problem if the DM hasn't properly prepared the campaign world ahead of time.  Which of course leads us back to, world building.  Funny how that works...




Nitpick: You can't use them until you've obtained them.

I fail to see the problem, either the DM already knows what's there (We're going to the Golden City of Isis), figures it out between sessions (Ok, next week we want to go to Isis. Cool, I'll whip something up.) or does it on the fly (We teleport to the largest city on the content. Ok, uh, you end up in the city of Isis. *scribble scribble*)

In one, you did all the work months and years before, one you did it the week before, and one your doing it right then. The PCs still ended up in Isis, didn't they?


----------



## Kask (Apr 2, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> In one, you did all the work months and years before, one you did it the week before, and one your doing it right then. The PCs still ended up in Isis, didn't they?




It's up to the players whether they want to sit around during game time while a DM creates a city that should already be prepared...  Some people don't mind.  It's a matter of taste.


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 2, 2009)

Hussar said:


> (slight snip)
> 
> What I realized was that when I was designing campaigns, I'd have all these ideas for the setting - background, history, geography, etc.  I'd do research into whatever elements I thought would help, I'd spend hours and hours trying to build my next world.  And, inevitably, the stresses of trying to do that AND come up with next week's material for the session burned me out.




Interesting. See, for me, the world-building is what keeps my batteries charged. It probably has something to do with the fact that unless I'm targeting a specific area, I tend to just jot down ideas as they come to me, spend half an hour here on some details for one setting, muse on a neat addition to another setting in the shower. (I do have a long-running D&D world that's hosted games since my college years, but I also run other games and genres.) 

Secondly, I just haven't had the same experience you have with players being interested in the setting. Certainly it helps that my wife is very much into it; she's often said she could throw a dart at a map of my world and come up with an idea for a character from wherever it landed. But it's the same for some of my other players, in different ways. One loves the pantheon she's gamed with for years on years. Another asked me out of the blue about the various war heroes-turned-nobles for a given nation: who are they, what are they famous for? For me, world-building isn't something wasted on the players (though I'll admit I have a few who are less overall intrigued by it), it's often something they demand and inspire. 

I totally get your approach. And I hope you don't take it the wrong way if I say I'm glad that I haven't had the same experiences, because right now my way of getting into D&D is pretty much my favorite, and I'm really happy it works. 



> Let me go off on a bit of a tangent here.
> 
> One of my absolute favoritest 3e book is Mystic Eye Games' Urban Blight.  Fantastic book.  Worth every penny.  In it, it details 20 urban locations that you can drop into pretty much any setting with a bit of tweaking.  They give a bit of history of each location, but primarily focus on each location as a place for adventures to occur.  The bar has a slaving operation underneath, the wizard's mansion features a crazy wizard who captures people in clocks, that sort of thing.
> 
> Not that the locations are modules.  They aren't.  They are nowhere near that scripted.  It's more like, "Here is this location, here are a few people at this location, here are half a dozen plot seeds for that location".




I find books like that really neat, but they tend to serve as inspiration for me more than anything else, a lot like published adventures do. I have a tough time dropping anything whole-cloth into my game, as usually there's at least a few assumptions about setting or play style that are interesting, but not 100% compatible. (I'm a rabid reskinner, for instance, and have gone along a parallel development track from most DMs as far as personal tastes go; leucrottas are a campaign must-have for me, for instance, whereas I would rather have Warhammer-inspired dark elves than drow in a game, and never got into mind flayers or beholders at all.) So because I have my eccentricities of setting (and players who go along with 'em), the real raw attention to immediate detail isn't helpful above and beyond the usual. 



> So, certainly you can go the direction of the standard setting book.  Lots of background, history and whatnot.  It works.  It's certainly tried and true.  I'm just trying to offer an alternative that I personally think works better.




Yep, I see the strengths. To some extent, i think 4e is messing around with that sort of thing; their Delve approach would work quite well in a setting book if they zoomed down to more of a city scale. But to have stuff that you can just plug and play does require everyone to be on a fairly large set of shared assumptions before a ready-to-go "module" is actually ready to go without alteration. Otherwise, they're work to use too, just like the setting elements that come with story hooks but not actual adventure outlines and stat blocks.

Of course, that's also why I like reskinning conversations so much (like the folks at RPGnet who turn shamans into sha'ir or bards into necromancers), because they feed me with ideas to use more of a drag-and-drop accessory. It's still work, but work is always easier with the right inspiration.

Just depends on wiring, I figure.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 2, 2009)

Players geek out on the cool stuff their characters can do all the time.

"Oh Wow, now I can cast Fireball!"

"Neat! I'm level 15!"

"Oh boy! New magic swords!"

....The world is just the DM's character.

If my character can have a backstory about how he was orphaned by adventurers at the age of 12, then my DM can have a backstory about a goblin war. If it helps him make goblins for me to fight and goblin kings for me to negotiate with and maybe goblin orphans for my to sympathize with, that's his thing, and it's fine.

I don't think a character having a personality is "character wankery," and I don't think that a setting having some not-entirely-relevant details is "setting wankery."

I don't care to hear about the obscure irrelevant insanity of your world's flumph breeding habits any more than you care to hear about how my character lost his virginity, though, so let's both agree not to bore each other.


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 2, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't care to hear about the obscure irrelevant insanity of your world's flumph breeding habits any more than you care to hear about how my character lost his virginity, though, so let's both agree not to bore each other.




And let's just hope the two are wholly unrelated.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 2, 2009)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> Setting creation is inherently directed at the PCs and the actions they take. World building can be PC diercted, but doesn't have to be. That is the difference.



Disagree.  When you're designing the world/setting, you don't (or shouldn't) *have* PCs yet.  This is all done before the first PC gets rolled up.  Thus, by default, it's the same thing.


> See, this is where the heart of the disagreement is. You do not need a world to create a character background. You do if you want to only choose from things that the DM provides for you. If players are allowed to come up with options, then no pre-established world created by the DM is necessary. Character backgound creates the setting, which becomes part of the world. Players and DM can create this together, usually toward the beginning of a campaign, but definitely not limited to the start of a campaign. The campaign is built around this, and this is why it is setting and not worldbuilding. Because it is PC and story driven.



I see the world as specifically something in the DM's purview, whether as a pre-gen setting or a homebrew invention.  Which means, I'm not about to expect to be able to mess with it very much, if at all...if only because I'll be generating even more work for the DM if I do.

Let's say I'm an Elf.  I decide (as player) I was born near the small village of Teria, near the border between the Elven and Dwarven lands to the north of where the campaign begins.  Right there I've forced the DM to somehow fit in that there's an Elven land somewhere north of the campaign start point, sharing a border with a Dwarven land, and there's a specific village that might become important someday if my PC ever wants to go home.  This might not mesh at all with what the DM had in mind (his view has Elves only living across the sea).  Who wins?


> The crux of the dispute is basically that some people feel that a world should be created, and then characters can be created to inhabit it using choices provided by the DM/worldbuilder, and whatever these characters do becomes a story. This is fine if you are OK with the idea that only the DM can have a say in the initial options, and you want story and themes to emerge from the play within this established world.



That's in part what a DM is for. 







> It inherently places the world in the center of the activity, and not the characters, and shifts a huge amount of the creative power and responsibility to the DM.



Not necessarily a Bad Thing, provided the DM has a clue...hence explaining why the guide to worldbuilding is presented prominently in all versions of the DMG.


> Others feel that the story and the characters should be placed at the center of the activity, and the world created around them. Goals are set first, and themes are created around these goals. Characters are created that capture the themes and are capable of fulfilling these goals. These characters are created with backgrounds. These backgrounds are used to help create the setting. The DM then creates a plot outline that will allow the players to accomplish the goal of play. The DM also fills in the setting enough to make the characters, plot, theme, and goals all fit together in a pleasing and consistent way. All setting creation is directed at fulfilling the goals of play by reinforcing theme, allowing characters to deepen, or forwarding the plot. Nothing else is necessary. Anything not directed at fulfilling the goals of play, reinforcing theme, deepening characterization, or forwarding the plot will actually lower the quality of play because it takes time away from the goals of play.



Provided you know exactly what the PCs are going to do, and want a game where the PCs are such special flowers that the world revolves around them, then fine.  Me, I want some non-PC-related theme and history built in to my world before the puck drops, so I'm not winging it all 4 sessions in when the PCs suddenly decide to interact with it.

Deep characterization will come from the players if they want it to, regardless.  And the plot is probably going to be driven by either the world's history or its current events, both of which the DM needs to know going in.

Lanefan


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 2, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Disagree.  When you're designing the world/setting, you don't (or shouldn't) *have* PCs yet.  This is all done before the first PC gets rolled up.  Thus, by default, it's the same thing.
> I see the world as specifically something in the DM's purview, whether as a pre-gen setting or a homebrew invention.  Which means, I'm not about to expect to be able to mess with it very much, if at all...if only because I'll be generating even more work for the DM if I do.




This is exactly what I am talking about. You don't see the difference because you are a world builder, you don't create settings. Setting creation is PC directed. If you aren't directing your campaign creation at the actual PCs, you are world building, not creating setting. That is the difference. You can disagree, but that is really the difference. Until you can see that difference in play style, you will never understand what the OP is talking about.
_______________________________________________________
Definitions
*Setting Creation-* _Creation of a campaign that is directed at the PCs. The purpose of all elements in setting creation is to address the predetermined goals of play, reinforce appropriate themes, allow for deep characterization, and forward the plot(s), all relative to the main characters of the game (usually the PCs)._ 

Good setting creation allows the characters to shine during the creation of stories that revolve around them, and is often appropriate for players who enjoy approaching games as an author would.

*Worldbuilding-* _Creation of fictitious worlds, with the goal being the creation of a world that is believable enough that it takes on a life beyond the PCs. The purpose of all elements of worldbuilding is to add as much detail as possible to create the illusion that the world has a life of it's own, and usually presuposes that the PCs are not the center of the creation._ 

Good worldbuilding allows DMs to feel comfortable knowing that they can handle any action that the PCs want to pursue, and is often appropriate for players who desire immersive play.
_______________________________________________________

Any playstyle can be achieved with either method, but setting creation is better for creating stories and worldbuilding is better for the experience of exploring fantasyscapes. To tell me that the process of setting creation is the same as worldbuilding, just that worldbuilders are doing it right and are better prepared is to show me that you completely misunderstand what setting creation is. It is not half-@$$ed world building. The two methods have entirely different goals, strengths, and usually very different outcomes and play experiences.

Many people actually create characters first, then the world is created around them. It only creates more work if the DM insists on worldbuilding first, then players are allowed to create characters that inject setting elements into his world. If you quit worldbuilding, then there is no wasted work. That is basically what the OP is trying to get at (If I read him right.) If you use a PC directed method to create the setting, then you don't create any extra work, and the players get to actually play what they want. The DM can even create setting without help from the players. He just by definition has to have input from the players about their goals for play, and the characters that they want to play, because setting creation is *ALWAYS* directed at the PCs and their story. That is how it is defined.

There are particular strengths of setting building that haven't even been addressed in this thread so far. Have you ever seen how many comments there are on messageboards about things that DMs won't allow because it doesn't fit his campaign? I have seen a ton. It is actually kind of sad. Players want to play things, but are not able to. This is very much a product of strict worldbuilding. It is not at all a problem of setting creation. Setting creation asks "Who are the PCs and what story do they have to tell?" Then a setting is created to facilitate this. Very different than pure world building.



Lanefan said:


> Let's say I'm an Elf.  I decide (as player) I was born near the small village of Teria, near the border between the Elven and Dwarven lands to the north of where the campaign begins.  Right there I've forced the DM to somehow fit in that there's an Elven land somewhere north of the campaign start point, sharing a border with a Dwarven land, and there's a specific village that might become important someday if my PC ever wants to go home.  This might not mesh at all with what the DM had in mind (his view has Elves only living across the sea).  Who wins?



 There is no "win". You should be mature enough that you communicate and come to an agreement. Otherwise it is just one person railroading another. That is how worldbuilders railroad. "Not in my campaign." "Those only exist over here, and they are not like you said. Here let me tell you how it is in my world..." It becomes the DMs game. I like it to be everyone's game.



Lanefan said:


> That's in part what a DM is for. Not necessarily a Bad Thing, provided the DM has a clue...hence explaining why the guide to worldbuilding is presented prominently in all versions of the DMG.



 That can be what a DM is for. DMs can also be in the role of adjudicator, facilitator, and as the guy that focuses on the elements of play that are not the PCs, but still address the goals and themes of the campaign. They are directed at the PCs, but are not traditionally the purview of players. The DM also helps to facilitate the plot. Yes, this is in part what a DM CAN be for, but the DM can be for other things, and this certainly is not all that they are for. They can also do very little of of what you say a DM is for, and still be a fantastic DM.



Lanefan said:


> Provided you know exactly what the PCs are going to do, and want a game where the PCs are such special flowers that the world revolves around them, then fine.  Me, I want some non-PC-related theme and history built in to my world before the puck drops, so I'm not winging it all 4 sessions in when the PCs suddenly decide to interact with it.



I hate to tell you, but the PCs are always special flowers. No other characters have non-DM players running them. That is what makes them special. There is no reason to make the stories of any NPC fun and exciting. When you make games where the stories of the PCs are not fun and exciting, the game sucks. There is an inherent difference between a PC and an NPC. To pretend otherwise is to fool yourself.



Lanefan said:


> Deep characterization will come from the players if they want it to, regardless.  And the plot is probably going to be driven by either the world's history or its current events, both of which the DM needs to know going in.
> 
> Lanefan




The DM doesn't actually have to know much of anything going in. Fantastic stories can be told without any world history, and plot can have nothing to do with this history. The only history, current events, or for that matter any other world element, that is needed are the ones that relate to the stories of the PCs. Unless it has a meaningful impact on the stories of the PCs, who gives a crap? It is all just made up. I can make that stuff up on the fly. 

See, this is the issue. The world doesn't exist. We just pretend that it does. You can make yourself feel better about pretending it does by defining large amounts of it before play, but it still doesn't exist, and definition stifles possibilities later. What if you regret your choice later? If it is an element that the PCs have not interacted with you can always change it, but are you ahead of the guy who didn't define it until the moment it was needed? No, you are not. That is how setting creation saves time over worldbuilding. Work that doesn't get used is much rarer with setting creation than worldbuilding.


----------



## Andor (Apr 2, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Players geek out on the cool stuff their characters can do all the time.
> 
> "Oh Wow, now I can cast Fireball!"
> 
> ...




I'm gonna disagree with you here. *Some* players geek out about what their characters can do all the time. Other geek out about what their characters have accomplished or aspire to achieve.

For every guy telling you about his bohemian ear-spoon of flensing, someone else has a story about when they saved the merchant's daughter from orcs, and how they helped her get set up in another town.

You might like hearing about a sword +1, +2 vs papparazzi. I'd rather hear about how it was forged by a sorcerer who was hounded from his city by a newspaperman with a vendetta.

If you were going to get cornered at a cocktail party by a guy in a gamer shirt, who would you pick? The guy who wants to tell you about his flaming spork? Or the guy who tells you about a tribe of troglodytes that worshiped a flaming spork as their sole source of light and heat?

And guess which sort of campaign spawns which sort of players?

Incidently, the world is not the GM's character. The world is the characters playground. Do you want fog and sand? Or the jungle gym and hauinted house?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 2, 2009)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> This is exactly what I am talking about. You don't see the difference because you are a world builder, you don't create settings. Setting creation is PC directed. If you aren't directing your campaign creation at the actual PCs, you are world building, not creating setting. That is the difference. You can disagree, but that is really the difference. Until you can see that difference in play style, you will never understand what the OP is talking about.
> _______________________________________________________
> Definitions
> *Setting Creation-* _Creation of a campaign that is directed at the PCs. The purpose of all elements in setting creation is to address the predetermined goals of play, reinforce appropriate themes, allow for deep characterization, and forward the plot(s), all relative to the main characters of the game (usually the PCs)._
> ...




I'll give you kudos for coming closest to clearly putting into words the difference between the approaches but these two activities are really just points on the same spectrum, or perhaps involve circles of different radii of focus. And this is why some of us have been flat out stating that the two activities really aren't very different. 

I would even submit that your definitions aren't mutually exclusive and that plenty of decisions a DM might make will fit into both or may shift from one classification to the other based on what the PCs actually do when interacting with the world.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 2, 2009)

billd91 said:


> I'll give you kudos for coming closest to clearly putting into words the difference between the approaches but these two activities are really just points on the same spectrum, or perhaps involve circles of different radii of focus. And this is why some of us have been flat out stating that the two activities really aren't very different.
> 
> I would even submit that your definitions aren't mutually exclusive and that plenty of decisions a DM might make will fit into both or may shift from one classification to the other based on what the PCs actually do when interacting with the world.




You are completely right that these activities are on a continuum. The issue is that many people don't realize how different these activities can be. Look at Lanefan's comment that when creating a campaign "you don't (or shouldn't) *have* PCs yet." It shows that he only understands the part of the continuum that is furthest toward the worldbuilding side. The other issue is that for what I remember, every edition of the DMG has focussed almost solely on worldbuilding with maybe one line about "communicate with your players." This does not help to teach players to create anything but worlds that are the sole purview of the DM.

Red and blue are on a continuum, but I would bet that only the most argumentative would argue that they are no different, so we might as well always choose red. This is basicaly the argument that has been presented when this thread and all of the campaign creation advice of the various DMGs and the online resources are taken together. The OP presents an argument for why he thinks that this has been a disservice to both beginning gamers and those who have been doing it since the stone ages. 

Worldbuilding is not the only way, and there are weaknesses inherent in it that need to be considered before you can really say that it is the way for you. It is one tool in the toolbox, and to ignore the others will create inferior craftsmen.

EDIT: As a side note, you say I come closest, but it implies that I have really missed the mark, even if I am closest. Could you refine my definitions to make it hit the mark instead of only come close? What is missing? What is needed? Not trying to be confrontational here, I actually want to create a definition that will help people understand the differences in approaching the game. This is not the first thread to argue these concepts. Having a good definition would streamline communication.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 2, 2009)

Andor said:


> You might like hearing about a sword +1, +2 vs papparazzi.



Apropos of nothing, I love this idea and will probably steal it. Thanks!


----------



## Kask (Apr 2, 2009)

Hussar said:


> No Kask, that is not what I'm saying.  What I am saying is that if my join date is five years ago, then perhaps, just maybe, I've been gaming for AT LEAST five years.





So?  Why would I care if you'd been gaming for 5 years?


----------



## Mallus (Apr 2, 2009)

billd91 said:


> I would even submit that your definitions aren't mutually exclusive and that plenty of decisions a DM might make will fit into both or may shift from one classification to the other based on what the PCs actually do when interacting with the world.



Put me down as DM who doesn't really get the distinction being made. Roughly half of our 4e homebrew setting document is a list of NPC's. They're as much a part of the environment as a dangerous alley, a storied mountain, or the setting's peculiar afterlife is. 

Let me give you an example from our setting. 


Ingenué Santos is an explorer and airship captain. (NPC)


Her airship is carried beneath a lighter-than-air Astral Starfish, which is buoyant because it's full of the void and infinitely-remote stars. They can also be persuaded to shoot bolts of purest void. (setting fluff)


It's well known that Ingenué is planning an expedition to the mythical land called the Interior. (future plot hook)

In writing up Ingenué I was creating the setting, because good settings are made of _people_, creating a potential campaign arc, and indulging in pure worldbuilding porn, in the details about the Astral Starfish.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 2, 2009)

Hussar is responding to the implication in an earlier post of yours Kask that basically stated that only people who have been gaming for a short time could like playing the way that he does. The other side of the coin of your implication is that people who have been playing for a long time would obviously find your playstyle to be superior. He was trying to establish his gameing credentials a little, and attempting to set you straight after maligning his gaming sensibilities.

You are completely wrong about longer experience leading people to play one, obviously superior, way. I have been playing for 23 years. Not as long as some, but probably much longer than most. I do not hold what you consider to be "true" to be anything like you state it. Experience gaming =/= coming to the same conclusion as you.

Can we get to some productive conversation now and quit with the ad hominem attacks?


----------



## Kask (Apr 2, 2009)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> Hussar is responding to the implication in an earlier post of yours Kask that basically stated that only people who have been gaming for a short time could like playing the way that he does.




I didn't say or imply that.  Don't EVER put words in my mouth again.

This is not how you talk to people at EN World. Lose the attitude, please. You can correct someone and still be polite about it. ~ Piratecat


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 2, 2009)

This is somewhat similar to _PrecociousApprentice's_ Setting Creation post. But is slightly different too more dealing with the actual process and less the end-effect.

I would definitely call myself a story-based DM. There is a main-plot, side-plots, character-plots, etc. As such I like to keep my setting loose to allow the plot and where the PCs take it to have "room" to deliver the narrative that is appropriate.

As such I don't create wholesale, mapped out settings I do; Drag and Drop, essentially:

*Drag and Drop:* The DM after consultation with his Players on what the campaign should be like; the themes, atmosphere, style of gameplay, races, etc, etc. The DM develops the plot, he does so separate of any "world" elements besides what had been already decided in consultation (exception of this being if one element is say a focus on a particular city for instance, though this would have been brought up).

After this comes a brainstorming stage. Where essentially the DM comes up with a whole library of places, events, people, etc. These would fit with the themes, atmosphere, as pre-determined. However none of this actually exists "in-game". They are simply drag and drop elements determined not by the world but the plot and the players. The plot dictates that a mine should be there, a mine is there. The players state they wish to visit a wise-man in the desert from their past, this wise-man is now in this newly formed desert. 

Essentially, while there is prep-work that goes into it and in a way is "world-building", it is really the plotline and what the players choose to go/exist in the world that actually builds the world. Without the progression of the plot and players none of the world would be defined.

This idea probably has been brought up before. But I figured it is another model to through out there into the debate.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 2, 2009)

Kask said:


> Like I said, it falls to pieces rapidly.



You can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true.



> Playing in little predefined boxes (you can't use high level spells unless you give advanced notice to DM) isn't a good campaign style.



Who said anything about not using high level spells without advance notice? That's never been a requirement in any game that I've ever run. I'm talking about players jettisoning from the current campaign context and going off to pursue goals that are completely tangential to the adventure at hand. Using teleport to go visit a sage in a distant city to find clues about something in the current campaign context would never be a problem, because that falls under the heading of "adventure prep" (i.e. clues related to the current adventure are related to the current adventure, obviously).


----------



## Rel (Apr 2, 2009)

How about everybody stop arguing with each other and start discussing with each other or I'm closing the thread.


----------



## Scribble (Apr 2, 2009)

Andor said:


> If you were going to get cornered at a cocktail party by a guy in a gamer shirt, who would you pick? The guy who wants to tell you about his flaming spork? Or the guy who tells you about a tribe of troglodytes that worshiped a flaming spork as their sole source of light and heat?




Either one will probably have me cringing.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 2, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Either one will probably have me cringing.



Yeah, the whole "wearing a gamer t-shirt at a cocktail party" bit pretty much sets the tone.


----------



## Kask (Apr 2, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Using teleport to go visit a sage in a distant city to find clues about something in the current campaign context would never be a problem, because that falls under the heading of "adventure prep"




You have to think outside the "current adventure railroad box".  If the players decide to do something outside your adventure, you are stuck creating major items during the game.  Like I said, some players will tolerate this, others won't.  Mine wouldn't and I only would if it were a one off adventure.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 2, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Put me down as DM who doesn't really get the distinction being made. Roughly half of our 4e homebrew setting document is a list of NPC's. They're as much a part of the environment as a dangerous alley, a storied mountain, or the setting's peculiar afterlife is.
> 
> Let me give you an example from our setting.
> 
> ...




This example could easily fall into either worldbuilding or setting design, and likely falls a little into both. We as readers have no way to determine the difference at this point. Was this character needed by the world, a logical consequence of the world, something that you wanted to have in the world? Or was it something that was created because the PCs needed this for their story? Was it necessary for the plot? If this character was yet to be introduced, and the PCs or plot needed something slightly different, would you be happy to change it, or would you just say that this is how the world works, the PCs need to figure out how to deal with it? We don't have near enough info to tell the difference. From the player side, good DMing makes it impossible to tell the difference between setting creation and worldbuilding, and in this case, we as readers are stuck in just about the same place.

The idea being, was the character created to directly address the the goals of play, the themes of play, the PCs character or personality, or the plot? If so, it might be setting design. Was the character created because it is the type of character that might exist in the world, or it would be cool and you want to add it, because this would make the world believable or interesting? If these are your motivations, it might be worldbuilding. 

I guess I should stipulate that these definitions are based upon intention. If it is intended to create a world independent of the PCs, that is worldbuilding. If it is intended to address the PCs, it is setting creation. What the element actually happens to be has nothing to do with it. Worldbuilders and setting designers create the same elements in their games. The difference is why they do it, how they do it, and sometimes when they do it, not what they create.

If you want a story, it makes sense to create elements in your game with those intentions in mind. Creating stuff not addressing the story is extra. For people who want this type of story driven game, worldbuilding can actually be counterproductive, because it can distract form the goals of storytelling. If the world is the point, then creating elements that address the world enhances your game. It might even make your game worse if you address the players and not the world. Setting creation is essential for creating a story. Worldbuilding is essential for creating immersive worlds that exist independent of the PCs. You can do both, but the more of one or the other play styles that you desire, the more disruptive tools suited for the other style becomes. We often do both, but understanding what we are doing can enhance our games, no matter what style we are trying to create.

It would be nice if there were more beginning campaign creation advice that was directed toward storytelling instead of worldbuilding. As it stands, there is very little storytelling advice in the various DMGs.

EDIT: Fallen Sereph, your creation process seems pretty close to mine. There is no defined space and time for any element in my campaign until it is introduced into my campaign. Anything that I come up with prior to play is just a sugestion for how I will use it in play, and I modify a lot based on the needs of the story. I like the terminology of Drag-and-Drop. It also seems to imply the reskinning and almost wholesale idea theft that I use a lot. This is a good addition. Thanks.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 2, 2009)

Kask said:


> You have to think outside the "current adventure railroad box".  If the players decide to do something outside your adventure, you are stuck creating major items during the game.



I don't have to do anything of the sort, because there's no "railroad box" to think outside. That's an unfounded assumption on your part about my games. The fact that I expect my players to give me some advance notice before completely changing their current focus in the campaign in no way implies that they aren't able to make whatever choices they want.

For someone who, apparently, doesn't like others putting words in his mouth, you seem to be doing an awful lot of that sort of thing yourself.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Apr 2, 2009)

Mercurius said:


> *To what degree is world-building needed to run a good/enjoyable campaign? How does world-building support depth and internal consistency? Can these qualities be achieved without a lot of world-building? What qualities does a campaign more likely have with or without a lot of world-building? What are the potential drawbacks to a lot of world-building and can it be excessive? Is it possible to "build as you go"? Etc. *
> 
> .




First, I don't think there is a wrong way to world build. And I believe the level of detail for each world should vary depending on the players and the needs of the genre. But I have some basic observations.

Is world building needed: For me this depends on the campaign. If its a dungeon delving campaing, I don't really care how many countries the DM has mapped out. But if it is a city based campaign, I will more interested in the political details of his setting. Also if there is a lot of travel involved. Its nice to know what territories you are passing through and who inhabits them. 

Internal Consistency: I think record keeping and memory is the most important thing for internal consistency. But mostly what the players care about, is where they have been. If they raid and destroy a village, the next time they go there, it better not look like nothing ever happened. Also, I have found most players are forgiving on the internal consistency thing, if you are honest when you miss important details. Too much world building can make internal consistency harder sometimes, if you create so many details you can't remember them all. That said, world building helps you establish broader connections between factions, people, kingdoms and trends in your setting. There is something to be said for detailed world building. But it has to be balanced. Don't go crazy making a world, if the players just want to hunt alligators in the city sewers. Once things start getting political in a game, its hard not to fret a little about detail.

Draw back to a lot of world building: Too much detail can be a bad thing: Have you ever had someone explain one of those dense multivolume fantasy series that has a cast of hundreds and six different periods of history? I think when you focus too much on the details, or at least when you make the details neccessary to know to play, then players get annoyed. The easiest histories and storylines to follow are straight forward and familiar in some way. If a DM sets his campaign in a Roman Empire analogue, I immediately have a frame of reference. If a DM tells me his campaign is set on the post apocalyptic world of Cateryinyl, after the fifth age of quandar, its hard for me to hold onto the names in his setting. If he complicates it further by getting into geo-political minutiea, then he has lost me. 

Is it possible to build as you go: Absolutely. There have always been two approaches to world building- Inside out, or outside in. You either start large, with a big picture and work your way inward; or you start small with a local setting, and flesh out the world as the PCs explore. Personally I think a combination of both is the best. 

One last thing about world building. You don't build a detailed setting, just so you can dump those details on the players. In public speaking this is sometimes called a data dump, and it applies here. No one remembers if you list of 16 kings, 5 kingdoms, 7 rebellions and 1000 years of history in conversation. Only give the players the most critical and interesting details about your setting to start. Then draw from the remainder as needed. Introduce them as plot elements so they are memorable. Don't just mention, there is a group of bandits called the Green Guardians in the woods. Have them rob the players or kidnap them as they pass through. Maybe have the Green Guardian leader insult them or impress them with charisma. The best details of your world, are the ones the players experience first hand.


----------



## Afrodyte (Apr 2, 2009)

Hussar said:


> For example, look at Romeo and Juliet.  Fantastic play.  One of the greats of the English language.  But, so utterly lacking in world building that you can set it almost anywhere, from Verona, to modern day cities, to space ships, to steaming jungles without changing a word.  Beyond the fact that you have two warring factions (why are they warring?  Who cares?) and the lovers are from opposing factions, that's about all the setting you get.




This is pretty much how I prefer DMs to do their settings. I'm really not interested in history, cosmology, and such if it doesn't directly impact the plot or the PCs. Heck, part of the fun for me is having other players bring a piece of the world with them (a town, a political network, etc.) instead of the DM spoon-feeding it to them all the time.

The next game I'm running is clearly going to be based off of well-known myths, folktales, fairy tales, and theater. I'll see how far that takes me.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 2, 2009)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> EDIT: Fallen Sereph, your creation process seems pretty close to mine. There is no defined space and time for any element in my campaign until it is introduced into my campaign. Anything that I come up with prior to play is just a sugestion for how I will use it in play, and I modify a lot based on the needs of the story. I like the terminology of Drag-and-Drop. It also seems to imply the reskinning and almost wholesale idea theft that I use a lot. This is a good addition. Thanks.



Hehe, no problem.

I would like to see Drag and Drop books. Dungeon Delve, sorta is like that in that you can take these encounters and put them into games. But it be nice to see a book with various refluffable concepts and setting ideas that one can take without any setting attachments. Perhaps with special mechanics, traps, terrain, etc. along with.

I agree too that it be nice to see more advice, resources, etc. allocated to the process of storytelling and not just world-building. My own view of gaming, and it being a story, etc. is heavily influenced by WoD which had lots to say about telling a story through rpgs, I found.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 3, 2009)

I never played any of the WoD games. I read V:tM in the early '90s, but never got anyone I knew to play it. My gaming background was heavily influenced by D&D, and I mostly missed a lot of the narrativist Indie games that seem to have been spawned by the Forge. I have played a few other RPGs, but mostly my gaming style has emerged from a lot of trial and error from D&D sessions. That might be why I feel that there is little support for a storytelling approach. D&D has not traditionally been promoted that way in the manuals. It is usually promoted by the official game materials in either two forms. Either a very railroady plot in most modules, or as a sandboxy worldbuilding exercise in any of the numerous campaign settings or the DMGs. There is little support for a PC directed and plot heavy approach.

As I have thought about this stuff, it seems to me that there is a spectrum between the two extremes of pure PC/plot directed and pure sandbox/worldbuilding. It seems like both of these methods can experience railroading in some form. The plot railroad is the most obvious of course, but the sandbox railroad exists as well. This form of railroad takes the form of DM imposed game elements in the world (Elves only live on the other side of the impassable mountains), or in the form of false choices (Sure you can go into those woods. You will be slaughtered by the dragon that lives there, but go ahead.) Both approaches have devices which allow the DM to limit player choice, even if the plot driven one is more obvious.

We all probably know what a sandbox campaign is. These campaigns are popular for the percieved PC choice. The thing is that this choice is limited to actions, not game elements. PCs can choose to interact with any of the DM predetermined game elements, but the players have no input into what elements are there, how those elements interact, or what those elements mean. This is basically just the ability to react to what the DM gives them to react to, and the choice is mostly about where you go. The world is established, and PCs interact with it, but have no choice in what the world is.

In a story style game, the same types of elements are present as are present in sandbox games, but the emphasis is placed on plot instead of place. This really just changes a lot of the focus from spatial relationships to temporal relationships. NPCs are present in both. You go from who, what, *when,* _where,_ *how,* and why, with the PCs input being the mostly about a little when and a lot how, with almost no input into where as that is established solely by the DM before the start of play, to a model of who, what, _when,_ where, *how, and why,* with the PC imput mostly in the form of how and why, with where being mostly color and the why being established at the start of the campaign.

Seems like player choice in sandbox play is mostly in the when and how. Player choice in plot driven play is in the how and why. DM purview in sandbox play is in the who, what, and especially where. DM purview in plot driven play is in the who, what, and especially when.

The goal for really good sandbox play is to create a well established world that is believable, provides the least limits on player choice in the when and how of play, and supports the goal of exploration. The goal of good plot driven play is to create a well established setting with a plot that is believable, provides the least limits on player choice in the how and why of play, and supports dramatic moments for the PCs.

We all know what kinds of things go into creating good sandbox play. This style of game has been promoted in all of the campaign creating advice in the DMG since basically there was a DMG. How do we go about creating a campaign that supports storytelling in the same way that sandbox play supports exploration? What would this style be called, and what would it look like? Are there examples of campaigns out there that are equal at achieving the goals of storytelling games to what sandbox play does for exploration? I have never played in a published adventure path, but are any of these close to what I ask? It seems to me that they wouldn't be unless they came with pregen characters that the path/story/plot was directed toward.

Just exploring here. Thanks ahead of time for any constructive feedback.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 3, 2009)

Ourph said:


> For someone who, apparently, doesn't like others putting words in his mouth, you seem to be doing an awful lot of that sort of thing yourself.



Which part of Rel's ultimatum was unclear?

Discuss, please. Don't bicker.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 3, 2009)

ProfessorPain said:


> Internal Consistency: I think record keeping and memory is the most important thing for internal consistency. But mostly what the players care about, is where they have been. If they raid and destroy a village, the next time they go there, it better not look like nothing ever happened. Also, I have found most players are forgiving on the internal consistency thing, if you are honest when you miss important details. Too much world building can make internal consistency harder sometimes, if you create so many details you can't remember them all.



You're absolutely right that record-keeping and memory are vital for internal consistency; which is why I'd better have things built first, as my in-session note-taking and memory are bad enough that the moment I start making important details up on the fly internal story consistency pretty much goes right out the window.   On a small scale, such as winging a name of some NPC, it's no big deal.  But if in one session I mention off the cuff that the Celts live to the north, and the players act on that; and 6 sessions later it becomes extremely relevant that they live to the west, I'm screwed.


> That said, world building helps you establish broader connections between factions, people, kingdoms and trends in your setting. There is something to be said for detailed world building. But it has to be balanced. Don't go crazy making a world, if the players just want to hunt alligators in the city sewers.



Thing is, even if the only foes are the alligators I still have a ready-made world to use again.


> Draw back to a lot of world building: Too much detail can be a bad thing: Have you ever had someone explain one of those dense multivolume fantasy series that has a cast of hundreds and six different periods of history? I think when you focus too much on the details, or at least when you make the details neccessary to know to play, then players get annoyed. The easiest histories and storylines to follow are straight forward and familiar in some way. If a DM sets his campaign in a Roman Empire analogue, I immediately have a frame of reference.



Exactly; and the details come in when figuring how that particular Roman-esque Empire came to be, what lands it holds, who the major figures are, what wars it's fighting, and so forth.


> Is it possible to build as you go: Absolutely. There have always been two approaches to world building- Inside out, or outside in. You either start large, with a big picture and work your way inward; or you start small with a local setting, and flesh out the world as the PCs explore. Personally I think a combination of both is the best.



Again right.  For my current campaign, for example, I started at a mid-level (one rapidly-declining Empire), then expanded to a macro-level (what other races and cultures live where outside the Empire and how do they get along; then some history), then went down closer to a micro-level (towns and villages around the starting area, and a starting adventure).

However, all of this was done before puck drop, without knowledge of who would actualy be playing or what characters they'd be running.  I went in with the attitude of "I'll build the most interesting setting I can, and it's either gonna work or it isn't"; I'm happy to report that fortunately it's so far, so good. 


> One last thing about world building. You don't build a detailed setting, just so you can dump those details on the players. In public speaking this is sometimes called a data dump, and it applies here. No one remembers if you list of 16 kings, 5 kingdoms, 7 rebellions and 1000 years of history in conversation. Only give the players the most critical and interesting details about your setting to start. Then draw from the remainder as needed. Introduce them as plot elements so they are memorable. Don't just mention, there is a group of bandits called the Green Guardians in the woods. Have them rob the players or kidnap them as they pass through. Maybe have the Green Guardian leader insult them or impress them with charisma. The best details of your world, are the ones the players experience first hand.



Exactly!  The built world is all background material, much of which may never see the light of day; and I don't care much if it does or not as long as we're all having fun.  But dumping all the details right off the hop both overwhelms the players and does away with any sense of explorative mystery you might have had.

It took almost a year of play in my current game before any of my players saw a map of what lay beyond the Empire's borders; a map which I'd drawn over a year before the first session.  Some here seem to think this is not the right way to do things, but I'll go with what works, thanks.

Lan-"did the lock hit while I was typing?"-efan


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 3, 2009)

This seems like an appropriate time to suggest an interesting essay on exposition through discovery, specifically discovery of something all D&D characters like: treasure!


----------



## Andor (Apr 4, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I don't have to do anything of the sort, because there's no "railroad box" to think outside. That's an unfounded assumption on your part about my games. The fact that I expect my players to give me some advance notice before completely changing their current focus in the campaign in no way implies that they aren't able to make whatever choices they want.




Speaking for myself, I don't expect any sane GM to have built up so much of the world that I can point to any random spot on the map and he'll know who lives there, what their plot hooks are, and who was their first love.

My problem has frequently been however that GMs who don't do enough world building are left floundering when I approach the main problem that was _supposed_ to be the main focus of the evening from some angle they weren't expecting. Not hareing off on some random plot. Not being deliberatly disruptive. Just trying to do what the GM wanted me to do in a way he didn't expect. Like by trying to contact the local thieves guild to see what they know about the guarded warehouse, and do they have some back way into it?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 4, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Thing is, even if the only foes are the alligators I still have a ready-made world to use again.



This is one of those things I see thrown around a lot.  I guess I just never considered using the same campaign world twice.  We pretty much assume each and every time we start a new game that it takes place in a new world.

I like the variety of playing in different worlds each time.  I feel too restricted when I'm running in a world with a bunch of established parameters.  I can't run a campaign about finding the 5 parts of the Drow Rod of Supremacy in a world that I've established has no Drow.  So, I come up with the idea for the campaign and then fill in the world details around that plot.

Each detail I write for one campaign would only cause one more limitation on future ones.  Better to start from scratch each time.



Lanefan said:


> It took almost a year of play in my current game before any of my players saw a map of what lay beyond the Empire's borders; a map which I'd drawn over a year before the first session.  Some here seem to think this is not the right way to do things, but I'll go with what works, thanks.



Good for you.  I don't mean that sarcastically.  If you have the time and feel it's worthwhile then I think it's a great idea.  However, since the average duration of our games tends to be 3-6 months before everyone gets bored, half the players real life concerns make them stop playing, or any number of other things...it seems silly to me to spend too much time working on a world for that game.

Plus, it just seems too much like actual work to me.  It's almost like homework.  I didn't like doing homework when I was going to school.  I was notorious for turning in assignments very late or not at all.  I spent the time playing games with my friends rather than doing work.  It's the same when I run a D&D game.  DMing can be fun, as long as it doesn't require me to write anything down more than a couple of point form notes when I have a free minute or two.  As soon as it requires me to draw maps before hand, plan out geography, come up with a list of NPCs and the like it takes all the fun out of the game for me.

The fun part of it is at the table for me.  Roleplaying that Ogre attacking the party.  Seeing what the PCs will do when faced with the Dragon, and so on.


----------



## Scribble (Apr 4, 2009)

Andor said:


> My problem has frequently been however that GMs who don't do enough world building are left floundering when I approach the main problem that was _supposed_ to be the main focus of the evening from some angle they weren't expecting. Not hareing off on some random plot. Not being deliberatly disruptive. Just trying to do what the GM wanted me to do in a way he didn't expect. Like by trying to contact the local thieves guild to see what they know about the guarded warehouse, and do they have some back way into it?




Some people like lots of information about a subject they can use for this purpose. They have a book or a binder full of notes that they can either quickly reference or remember when you ask that question.

Someone like me on the other hand? The more notes I have on the subject the worse I get. I get nervous I forgot or missed something, I spend entirely too long reading what the answer is, or I just end up making something up anyway. Big books of notes and lots of detail do me absolutely no good. A DM like me just needs a few key ideas, and improv will fill in the rest. I just can't do it any other way.


----------



## Kask (Apr 4, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I don't have to do anything of the sort, because there's no "railroad box" to think outside. That's an unfounded assumption on your part about my games. The fact that I expect my players to give me some advance notice before completely changing their current focus in the campaign in no way implies that they aren't able to make whatever choices they want.




Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that this is wrong.  It is a matter of taste/preference.  Some players don't mind being limited like that, some do.  Ultimately, you DM for your group.  Either they like/don't mind, being somewhat limited or they don't.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 4, 2009)

Andor said:
			
		

> Speaking for myself, I don't expect any sane GM to have built up so much of the world that I can point to any random spot on the map and he'll know who lives there, what their plot hooks are, and who was their first love.
> 
> My problem has frequently been however that GMs who don't do enough world building are left floundering when I approach the main problem that was supposed to be the main focus of the evening from some angle they weren't expecting. Not hareing off on some random plot. Not being deliberatly disruptive. Just trying to do what the GM wanted me to do in a way he didn't expect. Like by trying to contact the local thieves guild to see what they know about the guarded warehouse, and do they have some back way into it?




For me, fortunately, answering both of these questions is done in pretty much the same way.

The primary method is "figure it out from some other, established, plot point." If you point at a spot on the map I might figure out who lives there based on, say, the terrain (it's a blank field, probably farmers?), what their plot hooks are based on who they are (farmers have evil druids causing blight on their crops!) and who their first love is (farmer fell in love with the woman who sells his vegetables in town). 

And though I didn't know the answer to that question before you asked, I'll know by the time I'm done answering. 

Same with the thieves' guild. I base it on what the warehouse is (it's too heavily guarded by the guardians for the thieves to know much about it, but they know plenty about its defenses! No back way, though...)

If I'm drawing a blank, I might determine the result with a roll (easy when it's binary yes/now kind of a thing), and go from there.

It's the "snowball theory" of campaign design. I start with a few points, and just snowball details, never going back on them, using them to develop new points as I need them. 

It's fun for me to discover the world as my players do like this.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 4, 2009)

KM, I can't remember where you fall on the sandbox/script spectrum, but this is almost exactly what I do. Start small, build as I go, often improvise as I play, and never go back on what I have put into play, unless I can do it in a way that makes sense and is fun. I like to double cross or the big reveal about how things were misinterpreted.

I do all this from the prespective of what fits the characters/themes/story that we are telling. The world is molded to fit this. It is very much not a sandbox, but it also allows plenty of character and player choice.

Kask, I find it amusing that you cannot understand how absence of traditional preplanned worldbuilding does not necessarily lead to limited player/character choice. Choice has nothing to do with whether you pretend to know everything about the world before you sit down to play, or if you sit down to play without imagining that you know everything about the world. Limiting choice is a conscious act by the DM that only happens during play, and as I see it, you are more likely to do it if you have previously decided things than if you leave most things up to what happens during play. Pretending to have established "enough" about the world prior to  play has absolutely nothing to do with choice. Focusing on events verses focusing on geography has nothing to do with choice. Choice is how the DM and players interact.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 4, 2009)

Yeah, that style isn't much of a sandbox OR a script, but it's a really satisfying way to design a setting as you go, mostly because you only put in work where you want it.

Say you start with the idea that you want them to fight Orcus eventually. You let your players choose whatever. Your players come to you with an elf ninja, a thri-kreen psionicist, a dwarven warlock, a halfling cleric, and a human paladin.

Connect the dots.

Maybe ninjas, who lurk in shadows, are hired by the cult of Orcus. Maybe elves are now all asian, and maybe this elf ninja wants to fight the influence of this god of death on the elves! Maybe Thri-kreens go on "vision quests" like Australian aboriginals, and this one saw a vision of an evil goat. Maybe the dwarf is part of a clan who "dug too deep," and maybe that's part of how Orcus is getting into the world. Maybe the paladin and the cleric are from the same church, raised there as orphans, and forced to go fight the Orcus Cult for the glory of Moradin. 

Now, suddenly, you have a surplus of awesome in your setting, and an excuse for everyone to go kill Orcus. All these datapoints are things you can build later adventures on. Maybe the first adventure has to do with everyone meeting in a town where Orcus's cultists have been sighted recently. They all come into town, meet in the tavern, and see that they have the same goals. They team up and fight it and suddenly we're off on a series of quests.

You have more information than you'll need for the adventure (which is sandboxy -- the PC's know that Thri-kreen have visions and such, so maybe if they need some divination done, they'll visit the Thri-kreen!), but you also won't have anything that's really irrelevant (The thri-kreen vision is WHY the thri-kreen character is involved), and you'll have plenty of points for unexpected choices (Ah! You want to team up with the cultists to go deeper! That's fine! Thankfully, you have an elf ninja in your party, and a dwarf warlock, and the cultists are used to dealing with those types! Better hide the halfling and the human, though!).

It's kind of a lot of fun.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Apr 5, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Second, let's not lose sight of the fact that your campaign setting is very small.  You're limiting yourself to one city.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  It sounds interesting, but, it does cut down on the work load.




The relative scale of a setting has very little to do with the amount of work it requires to prepare. I've seen entire worlds described in 34-page gazetteers and I've seen single cities described in 600+ page tomes. (And gotten use out of both.)

But that leads me to a more general point, which is...



Hussar said:


> What changed, for me anyway, was a dawning realization of a couple of things. One, very few players ever invest even a fraction of the interest in the setting that the DM does. They invest in the story, they invest in the campaign, but, as far as the setting goes, most of the players I've played with aren't terribly concerned with it beyond how it affects their character.
> 
> What I realized was that when I was designing campaigns, I'd have all these ideas for the setting - background, history, geography, etc. I'd do research into whatever elements I thought would help, I'd spend hours and hours trying to build my next world. And, inevitably, the stresses of trying to do that AND come up with next week's material for the session burned me out.




I've been talking with a friend about these issues lately, and he mentioned something that I thought was quite useful: There is _broad_ prep and there's _deep_ prep.

What constitutes breadth and depth depends on the scale of what you're prepping, but in general you need to broad prep so that you have a framework to build on, but you should only do deep prep into those areas that the players are eminently going to see.

He recommends thinking of prep in three tiers: The broad strokes, the details, and the development.

For example, if you're designing a village for sandbox play your broad prep might be the name of the village; a map; maybe some quick notes on the town's general history, purpose, location, etc. Your detailed prep might be a dozen or so NPCs and a few locations that the PCs are likely to interact with.

Then, at that point, you wait and see what happens when the PCs actually interact with the village. What inn do they decide to stay at? Which NPCs do they seem to really like interacting with? Those are the things that you should come back in and develop with even greater depth. Everything else (the locations and people they're less interested in) you can leave sketchy.

My current campaign world now comprises several hundred pages of notes and dozens of maps. But it got it's start as a 15-page player handout; 2 pages of "secret pre-history"; a world map with the borders of the major kingdoms marked; a 2-page campaign outline; and a single adventure.

But within that material I had the broad strokes of the entire world laid out: The major countries, cultures, gods, religions, languages, historical events, and the like. It was a broad -- but simple -- foundation.

Everything else that has been designed for that world has been designed as I needed it. And, in general, I follow a pretty simple maxim: If the players aren't going to see it, then it's as if it never existed at all.



> Not every setting book does this mind you. Ptolus for one does not. Freeport also includes adventure hooks for its locations. Ravens Bluff had their Points of Interest. Fantastic stuff and I wish more publishers went in that direction.




I'm going to go ahead and pimp the sig.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 5, 2009)

Kask said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that this is wrong.  It is a matter of taste/preference.  Some players don't mind being limited like that, some do.  Ultimately, you DM for your group.  Either they like/don't mind, being somewhat limited or they don't.



Unfortunately, you're still failing to grasp what I've been saying. There are no limitations. The players can chose to do whatever they want. Asking them to tell to me about choices that drastically change the direction of the campaign before they make them isn't a limit on those choices.


----------



## Andor (Apr 5, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Unfortunately, you're still failing to grasp what I've been saying. There are no limitations. The players can chose to do whatever they want. Asking them to tell to me about choices that drastically change the direction of the campaign before they make them isn't a limit on those choices.




You can say that, but it directly contradicts my own experiences. When I think of a different approach to a problem that the GM didn't foresee, and didn't detail just because, the answer is pretty much always "no", "You can't do that" or "There isn't one". In extreme cases this leads to heavily populated cites with no drainage or sewer systems because I wanted to know if there were tunnnels under the city. 

A few times people in this thread have mentioned geology as an explict example of something that is silly to detail. Or local wildlife.

IRL at one point Julius Ceasar had a city under siege. As the romans were masters of hydrology he managed to find and block the underground river that fed their well and the city surrendered in days instead of months.

I also seem to recall a viking commander who noted that there were birds who nested in the thatch roofs of the city he was besieging. Everyday they flew out of the town to eat, and returned at night. So that day he has his men catch as many of the birds as they could. They tied long strings soaked in pitch to the birds legs, and at dusk they  lit the strings and released the birds, who flew back to their nests and burned the town to the ground.

Details matter. If the GM added lot's of details beforehand then clever players can usse those details. 

In my experience however, unplanned details do not suddenly appear just because I had an idea, or remembered a bit of history.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 5, 2009)

Andor said:


> Details matter. If the GM added lot's of details beforehand then clever players can use those details.



If the DM doesn't have them preplanned, they can still be made available to the players/characters. Details are details, no matter when or how they are created. Preplanning things is not the only way that they get into the campaign. If it is in your campaign, then your campaign is more limited than the way that Kask is implying that Ourphs is. No one can plan an entire world in fantastic detail with unlimited choice and have it not crumble when it meets the PCs. We all improvise at the table.



Andor said:


> In my experience however, unplanned details do not suddenly appear just because I had an idea, or remembered a bit of history.



You must not be paying attention, or your DM is doing a poor job. No one plans every detail before hand. Even the most detailed of campaigns has a massive amount of stuff that is emergent in play and improvised. 

My experience has been that it is best to leave a lot of the campaign development to *exactly* when the player has the idea. The details that I focus on before hand are mostly things that can be integrated in highly flexible ways. It was called drag-and-drop upthread. Keeping the action going in whatever way it is currently going in a consistent way is the name of the game for a good DM. Some people do it with preplanned sandboxes. Some people do it with preplanned plots. I like to do it with very little worldbuilding, some light plot writing, and a crap-ton of imporvisation and drag-and-drop elements. Then I make stuff up at the table, just like the rest of you.


----------



## Scribble (Apr 5, 2009)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> I like to do it with very little worldbuilding, some light plot writing, and a crap-ton of imporvisation and drag-and-drop elements. Then I make stuff up at the table, just like the rest of you.




This is pretty much my style to a T.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 5, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> This is one of those things I see thrown around a lot.  I guess I just never considered using the same campaign world twice.  We pretty much assume each and every time we start a new game that it takes place in a new world.



If I designed a world and only got one or two in-city adventures out of it, then hell yeah that world would be used again.  (though maybe starting in a different city...)


> Good for you.  I don't mean that sarcastically.  If you have the time and feel it's worthwhile then I think it's a great idea.  However, since the average duration of our games tends to be 3-6 months before everyone gets bored, half the players real life concerns make them stop playing, or any number of other things...it seems silly to me to spend too much time working on a world for that game.



Ah.  There's the difference.

I design my worlds to support a campaign that'll run for 5-10 years, and then fully expect it to last at least that long.  Which means, other than for one-off adventures, in 25 years of DMing I've designed 3 worlds*; they're listed in my sig.  Given that, taking a year for the design process isn't such a big deal as the return-on-effort ratio is pretty good. 

* - full disclosure: two-and-a-half worlds. Riveria was more a nuke-and-pave of the northwest chunk of the Forgotten Realms setting (1e version), with the rest of the physical Realms and some of the major NPCs etc. (e.g. Red Wizards) left pretty much stock.  That said, many creatures and all deities,  history, etc. got a complete makeover.

Lanefan


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 5, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> This seems like an appropriate time to suggest an interesting essay on exposition through discovery, specifically discovery of something all D&D characters like: treasure!



Ethan, I wanted to flag this link: reading it just dumped a large pile of sneaky ideas into my brain. Thank you. That whole blog is worth reading.


----------



## Kask (Apr 5, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Unfortunately, you're still failing to grasp what I've been saying. There are no limitations.




Sorry, but time is a limitation & a barrier.  As in, waiting for you to work out an area if they want to go there.  Sorry, your argument is false by the very definition of the word limitation.  But, like I said, it is a matter of preference and nothing wrong with your chosen style.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 5, 2009)

There isn't actually a wait to play there, at least in my games. There is a wait for me to prep stuff for that area. The characters can insist on going there, I just have to wing it for the rest of the session. This winging it often includes an improvised NPC or a "wandering monster", depending on the appropriateness of either. 

If you are trying to tell me that you never have to wing anything, I would say that your players are not pushing the boundries so this wouldn't be a problem in Ourphs games either, or you are full of it and you have to delay or improvise like the rest of us. No one actually has a fully detailed world where there is no detail the characters could seek out that is not prepared. 

You wing it like the rest of us. Delaying is not a limit. Your campaign is just as limited by what you have prepared, even if you have much more prepared than anyone ever has in the history of worldbuilding. Your world doesn't actually exist either, and Ourph's likely has more flexibility precisely because he preps less than you do. Unrestricted imagination is just as good as prepared and slightly restricted imagination when it comes to made up worlds.


----------



## Rel (Apr 5, 2009)

Kask said:


> Sorry, but time is a limitation & a barrier.  As in, waiting for you to work out an area if they want to go there.  Sorry, your argument is false by the very definition of the word limitation.  But, like I said, it is a matter of preference and nothing wrong with your chosen style.




I guess I've never had a group of players who felt entitled to immediately go anywhere in the world, instantly, for no foreseeable reason, and expect me to be able to provide highly detailed information about that location.  That's probably for the best I think because my GMing style wouldn't support that very well.


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 5, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> I've been talking with a friend about these issues lately, and he mentioned something that I thought was quite useful: There is _broad_ prep and there's _deep_ prep.
> 
> What constitutes breadth and depth depends on the scale of what you're prepping, but in general you need to broad prep so that you have a framework to build on, but you should only do deep prep into those areas that the players are eminently going to see.




A very important distinction, and one I'm glad to see raised. I think a lot of the pure unadulterated fun of world-building tends to come from broad prep, though deep prep is also entertaining. I definitely tend to do broad prep when I'm just mucking around with a game world, and deep prep only when I have an ongoing campaign and the next session weighs heavy on my mind (or when designing a starting point for a new campaign). 



Piratecat said:


> Ethan, I wanted to flag this link: reading it just dumped a large pile of sneaky ideas into my brain. Thank you. That whole blog is worth reading.




Glad to be of service! Robbins is a very clever fellow, and I find his observations really interesting. I am also, like many, fond of his West Marches posts, which kind of make me wish I had the kind of free time necessary to run a game like that without having to give up on all other games I might like to run until it reached a stopping point. 

In fact, I think I'll link that into the discussion as well, for any other interested parties: West Marches, the beginning. Short version: It was a grand experiment of a game almost 100% about exploration, with dense worldbuilding and almost 0% plot over and above "the players go to places and stir up trouble."  It certainly wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, but it reads like some of the most classic D&D ever, in a good way. If you don't get the appeal of "exploration" as a primary incentive, check it out, see how the other side lives.


----------



## Kask (Apr 5, 2009)

Rel said:


> I guess I've never had a group of players who felt entitled to immediately go anywhere in the world, instantly, for no foreseeable reason, and expect me to be able to provide highly detailed information about that location.  That's probably for the best I think because my GMing style wouldn't support that very well.




Right.  Different groups game differently.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2009)

Couple of points first.

Kask - I did take your original comments to me as questioning my experience gaming and trying to set yourself upon your own credentials.  If I misread that, I appologize.  I strongly dislike piddling contests in this manner, because they actually prove nothing.  For the record, I started gaming in 1980.

Imaro - when I said 3-5 hours to develop an adventure, I didn't specify edition.  My bad, I was thinking 3e.  However, that being said, if you can develop an entire adventure - presuming something that will last, say, 2-4 sessions, in under 3-5 hours, including maps, and everything else, that's pretty damn quick.  However, all that being said, when I go back and look at what you call world building, I'd pretty much do the same thing.  So, you call that world building, I do not.  Since you refuse to define what you mean by world building, we cannot really proceed.



			
				Beginning of the End said:
			
		

> He recommends thinking of prep in three tiers: The broad strokes, the details, and the development.
> 
> For example, if you're designing a village for sandbox play your broad prep might be the name of the village; a map; maybe some quick notes on the town's general history, purpose, location, etc. Your detailed prep might be a dozen or so NPCs and a few locations that the PCs are likely to interact with.
> 
> Then, at that point, you wait and see what happens when the PCs actually interact with the village. What inn do they decide to stay at? Which NPCs do they seem to really like interacting with? Those are the things that you should come back in and develop with even greater depth. Everything else (the locations and people they're less interested in) you can leave sketchy.




This sounds pretty much exactly what I'm talking about.  The broad strokes, of course, have to be done.  You have no choice there really, in most campaigns.  Since you are advocating the deeper development following player interactions, I wouldn't call this world building at all - it's setting building.  It is directly tied to the story that is developing within the group.  For me, world building is when you, as Precocious Apprentice very excellently said, try to develop the campaign world separate from the characters in the campaign.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> I design my worlds to support a campaign that'll run for 5-10 years, and then fully expect it to last at least that long. Which means, other than for one-off adventures, in 25 years of DMing I've designed 3 worlds*; they're listed in my sig. Given that, taking a year for the design process isn't such a big deal as the return-on-effort ratio is pretty good.




As a question Lanefan, do you think this would be good advice to give to DM's?  To tell them that they should do this much work with the expectation that their campaigns will last for so long?

Yes, this works for you and that's great.  But, I'm thinking you are very much an outlier here.  



			
				Kask said:
			
		

> Right. Different groups game differently.




True, but, I'd be pretty surprised to learn that any group out there has actually done what you are suggesting.  To walk into the session and abandon all ongoing campaign elements to do something that is a complete surprise to the DM?   If this has ever happened, I'm going to file it under statistical anomoly and ignore it for this conversation.  I really, really doubt that any DM has to deal with this on a regular basis.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 5, 2009)

Hussar said:
			
		

> To walk into the session and abandon all ongoing campaign elements to do something that is a complete surprise to the DM? If this has ever happened, I'm going to file it under statistical anomoly and ignore it for this conversation. I really, really doubt that any DM has to deal with this on a regular basis




In an ideal scenario, this is exactly how I prefer to DM; as a reaction rather than as a proaction. The PC's create characters, I figure out how they're linked. The PC's choose to do something, I figure out what happens after they do it. I don't know what they're going to do beforehand, all I can do is be prepared to leap along with them. They want to do something I didn't anticipate? The answer, as in all good improv, is always and forever will be, "Yes."

Ideally, everything they do is something I didn't anticipate, because I don't enjoy it as much when I have to anticipate their actions. 

Honestly, for the "casual crowd," this is how D&D *has* to be played. No pre-prep, just game. If you run a module, a lot of this work has presumably been done beforehand, but even then, PC's can always take a course that the adventure writer didn't have in mind. 

The "casual crowd" is probably a statistical rarity for D&D, but it probably shouldn't be, going forward. If D&D ever wants to grab the broader, non-obsessive segment of the market, they're going to have to eliminate the concept of pre-prep almost entirely, so that all a DM has to do for the game is sit down at the table and PLAY. 

In that respect, worldbuilding cannot be necessary, even a little bit, if that is to be a goal. It can be helpful and fun for those who are into it (so that if you like it, you can do it, and it can be rewarding), but it can't be something that every DM has to do a little bit of. It has to be something that can be ignored.

For that, you're going to need to teach DM's how to completely wing it. Worldbuilding is a luxury that most people don't have (though it's something fun for some as well, so you probably shouldn't remove it; just remove the NEED for it).


----------



## Ourph (Apr 5, 2009)

Andor said:


> You can say that, but it directly contradicts my own experiences. When I think of a different approach to a problem that the GM didn't foresee, and didn't detail just because, the answer is pretty much always "no", "You can't do that" or "There isn't one". In extreme cases this leads to heavily populated cites with no drainage or sewer systems because I wanted to know if there were tunnnels under the city.



I'm not sure how it can directly contradict your own experiences, since I'm talking about the way I run my game and I'm pretty sure we've never played an RPG together. I'm not arguing that railroading doesn't exist, just that asking players to talk to the DM before changing the entire focus of the campaign isn't railroading.

As to your later points, I wholeheartedly agree. As far as I'm concerned, the watersource of a town under siege in the current campaign context is part of the ongoing adventure and that's something I would expect to have details about as the DM. It's the watersource of the town 30 miles away that I wouldn't be worried about. If the PCs told me they were planning to abandon the current siege and move on to the town 30 miles away, then I would worry about that town's water supply.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 5, 2009)

Ourph said:


> If the PCs told me they were planning to abandon the current siege and move on to the town 30 miles away, then I would worry about that town's water supply.




I wouldn't unless either I wanted it to have a direct effect on the PCs or the PCs asked about it. Otherwise it is functionally not there. I don't care about it.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 5, 2009)

Kask said:


> Sorry, but time is a limitation & a barrier.  As in, waiting for you to work out an area if they want to go there.  Sorry, your argument is false by the very definition of the word limitation.  But, like I said, it is a matter of preference and nothing wrong with your chosen style.



What time? You're assuming that I'm making my players wait on something. I don't see where you're getting this idea. You seem to have some pretty strong assumptions about the way games are run that you're applying to what I'm saying that are leading you to draw a lot of false conclusions.

I ask my players to tell me beforehand if they want to make major changes to the direction of the campaign specifically so that they don't have to wait. Doing so also prevents the players from being limited by my ability to improvise. With notice, I can come up with a much more detailed and rich adventure setting for them to explore. If anything, I find the process of relying on generalized worldbuilding plus improvisation at the table to be the more limited option.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 5, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> For that, you're going to need to teach DM's how to completely wing it. Worldbuilding is a luxury that most people don't have (though it's something fun for some as well, so you probably shouldn't remove it; just remove the NEED for it).



I'm not sure 100% improv gaming is a good fit for the "casual" gamer crowd. It seems to me that learning to improvise an entertaining adventure completely off the cuff requires a lot more work than familiarizing yourself with a pre-written adventure well enough to deal with unexpected player solutions to the challenges while running it.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 5, 2009)

100% improv is hard to pull off well. 0% improv is really hard to pull off well, and almost surely requires player compliance. Somewhere in between is going to be the optimal solution. Casual gamers would probably be better served by being taught how to improv better than by being taught to worldbuild better. I think that this was the purpose of the OP, and is where I have come to stand in my games. I think that prewritten adventures have little to do with the OP's objections to worldbuilding, and have nothing to do with mine. A general idea or where the game is going combined with a comfort with improv and the ability to take note are likely the only "necesary" things for a meaningful campaign.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 5, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Couple of points first.
> 
> Imaro - when I said 3-5 hours to develop an adventure, I didn't specify edition.  My bad, I was thinking 3e.  However, that being said, if you can develop an entire adventure - presuming something that will last, say, 2-4 sessions, in under 3-5 hours, including maps, and everything else, that's pretty damn quick.  However, all that being said, when I go back and look at what you call world building, I'd pretty much do the same thing.  So, you call that world building, I do not.  Since you refuse to define what you mean by world building, we cannot really proceed.





How about instead of you and Rounser asking me how I define "worldbuilding" we take the definition from the sources youyourself have brought up...

DMG 3.5- There are two types of worldbuildiung detailed here... Inside Out and Outside In. 



			
				3.5 DMG pg. 135 said:
			
		

> Inside Out-"You start with a small area and build outward.  Don't even worry about what the whole world looks like, or even the kingdom.  Concentrate on a single village or town, preferably with a dungeon or other adventure site nearby.  Expand slowly and only as needed.  When the PC's are ready to leave the initial area (which might not be for ten or more playing sessions, depending on your first adventures), expand outward in all directions so you're ready no matter which way they go.  Eventually you will have an entire kingdom developed, with the whole derived from what follows from the initial starting point.  Proceed to other neighboring lands, determining the political situation in each one.  Keep accurate notes as you play, for you may develop rumors of hostilities with a neighboring kingdom before you ever develop the kingdom itself
> 
> The advantage to this method is that you don't need to do alot of work to get started.  Whip up a small area, and go.  This method also ensures that  you won't develop areas of the campaign that are never visited by the PC's and that you can develop things (and change your mind) as you go."






			
				3.5 DMG pg.135-136 said:
			
		

> Outside In- "Start wiith the big picture-draw a map of an entire continent or a portion thereof.  Alternatively, you could start with a grand design for how a number of kingdoms and nations interact or the outline of a vast empire.  You could even start with a cosmology, deciding how the deities interact with the world, where the world is positioned in relation to other worlds, and what the world as a whole looks like.  Only after you have this level of concept design worked out should you focus on a particular area.
> 
> When you begin more detaliled work, start with large-scale basics and work down to small-scale details.  For example, after you have constructed your continent map, pick a single kingdom and create the ruler or rulers and the general conditions.  From there focus on some substate or region within the kingdom, develop who and what lives there (and why), and pepper the region with a few hooks and secrets for later development.  Finally once you get down to the small scale- a single community, a particular patch of forest or valley, or where ever you choose to start the campaign- develop the area in great detail.  The specifics of the small area should reflect and tie back to the basics you have set up for the larger areas.
> 
> This method ensures that once you have started the campaign you're laready well on your way to having a complete setting.  When things are moving along quickly in the campaign, you can focus on the characters and individual adventures, because the world is mostly done.  This method also allows you to use foreshadowing of larger events, faraway places, and grander adventures earlier on in the campaign.




So there you go, defintiions of the 2 generally accepted types of worldbuilding from the 3.5 DMG.

Now to go deeper into it, There are certain areas that overlap in adventure design and worldbuilding, such as NPC design... but things such as a starting town, shops, a village near the dungeon, etc. are clearly cited as worldbuilding... independent of whether they are interacted with by the PC's or not. 

SIDE NOTE: You know in looking through the DMG, I find it strange that you are complaining about there not being enough focus on scripted adventure design as opposed to world building when the entirety of chapter 3 is about adventure building (about 60 pages total).  Also the opening to the campaign chapter is not what you cited before (it may have not been you Hussar, if so I apologize and direct this at whoever it actually was) the actual opening is this...



			
				 3.5 DMG pg.129 said:
			
		

> Encounters are to advetures what advetures are to campaigns.  Good adventures make up good campigns.  Creating a campaign is the most difficult, but most rewarding task a DM faces.
> 
> It is important to distinguish the difference between a campaign and a world, since the terms often seem to be used interchangeably.  A campign is composed of a series of adventures , the NPC's involved in those adventures and the events surounding everything that happens in those adventures.  When you guide players through adventures you have designed and the players choose the paths for their characters wwithin those adventures you are running a campaign.
> 
> A world is a fictional place in which a campaign is set.  It's also often called a campaign setting.  A campaign requires a world in which the action takes place, but whether you create your own world or use an already established setting, the campaign you run is always your own..."




I think this clearly states what role adventures (whether scripted or not) play in a campaign... plus the actual  chapter on adventure design (roughly 60 pgs), which comes before any type of worldbuilding advice (roughly 40 pgs), and I'm starting to wonder where all this supposed focus on worldbuilding is?


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 5, 2009)

Pride and Prejudice said:
			
		

> "I should like balls infinitely better," she replied, "if they were carried on in a different manner; but there is something insufferably tedious in the usual process of such a meeting.  It would surely be much more rational if conversation instead of dancing were made the order of the day."
> 
> 
> "Much more rational, my dear Caroline, I dare say, but it would not be near so much like a ball."





I greatly enjoyed the Enemy Within campaign for Warhammer, which as I recall was pretty heavily a story-driven railroad. I also recall that it was set in a vividly realized world, and that the details on the horizon at every turn added to my enjoyment. For one thing, the world development facilitated more improvised interludes between chapters of the plot-line; for another, it helped the GM to add color to scenes.

There were a number of characteristics associated with Warhammer that helped define its distinctive identity as a game and came to be expected of it. The same could be said, for instance, of Vampire: The Masquerade, Paranoia, or many other games.

Now, there are many fine ways to play an RPG. I see trouble in this thread from folks such as Hussar who propose that it is inferior to play D&D as D&D was originally designed to be played. It's like saying that fish would be so much better if they had legs instead of fins and wool instead of scales. Indeed, that would make for better mutton -- but not at all for better fish!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 6, 2009)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I'm not sure 100% improv gaming is a good fit for the "casual" gamer crowd. It seems to me that learning to improvise an entertaining adventure completely off the cuff requires a lot more work than familiarizing yourself with a pre-written adventure well enough to deal with unexpected player solutions to the challenges while running it.





It's a tragic day when D&D players have forgotten the fine art of a good random generation table.  

Plus, it's not that hard.

I mean, for the casual crowd, you don't need campaigns and plotlines and 30 levels. You just need a dungeon, a dragon, and perhaps some treasure to take from it or a town to threaten with it. You need a ruleset that helps you make all that on the fly in a balanced fashion, along with making a character, without taking more than 5 minutes to do it. And maybe some good DMing advice (like "say yes," "steal, rip, burn, and borrow," and "snowball it"). No one cares if it's not the next Tolkein 'cuz no one is looking for that in a casual game. 

You also need to reduce the time, effort, and "toys" you need to play.

D&D is not a "lite" game in any respect, even in 4e (though it makes some admirable and some less admirable stabs at it). If you're looking to preserve time and effort, you're probably not playing D&D.


----------



## Kask (Apr 6, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Couple of points first.
> 
> Kask - I did take your original comments to me as questioning my experience gaming and trying to set yourself upon your own credentials.  If I misread that, I appologize.  I strongly dislike piddling contests in this manner, because they actually prove nothing.  For the record, I started gaming in 1980.




That was a great time to start, wasn't it?  I only started a couple years earlier.  We experienced the birthing of AD&D, Traveller, Rune Quest, T&T, Arduin, etc. A lot has transpired in the RPG arena.  We can count our selves as lucky to have gamed throughout it.  Peace, and may your games always be as exciting as your 1st adventure.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 6, 2009)

The amount of time and effort needed for a given undertaking can depend in part on the rules set in use. Pre-WotC D&D is extremely "light" relative to more recent games by the name. That's especially true of the original set without the supplements.

What I've seen most often is "inside out" and "outside in" in parallel. The main dungeon and home base get the most preliminary detail, but a good bit of the rest of the world is broadly sketched. That works very well with the traditional assumption that the dungeon is initially to be the focus of exploration -- which was pretty natural when it stood out as one of the distinctive features of the game, the reason it was called _Dungeons & Dragons_. A dynamic dungeon can be an excellent "little sand box" for casual play, and old D&D sets provided tools for making its creation fairly quick and easy.

For some people, that initial set-up may largely suffice for many sessions of play. There can be plenty of time to flesh out the wider milieu just a bit at a time, staying well ahead of players' explorations.

Reuse of elements is an asset of long-term play in the same world. The kinds and amounts of detail in a traditional campaign tend to be a bit different than in designing "adventure scenarios". The volume written down to describe a given area tends to be less than in a "module" for publication, because so much information can be retained in the designer's memory (to which a reader would not have access) and because modules tend to specify much that would more probably be improvised in play by a DM refereeing his own creation.

An "adventure" write-up typically has more limited replay value than what a "world-builder" produces in the same amount of time. The former focuses more on "encounters" meant to be met but once, the latter more on elements that can interact dynamically over long periods. The former attempts to anticipate and guide players' actions, "zooming in" on detailed descriptions of discrete events, whereas the latter emphasizes a "big picture" of places and ongoing processes.

The _Griffin Mountain_ book for RuneQuest was for my taste an ideal selection of material for getting a campaign underway.

It remains true that D&D by its nature demands more time and effort than, say, Monopoly or Scrabble -- or many board games with heroic-fantasy themes.


----------



## Kask (Apr 6, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I ask my players to tell me beforehand if they want to make major changes to the direction of the campaign specifically so that they don't have to wait. Doing so also prevents the players from being limited by my ability to improvise.




Bingo!  My point made.  You require of your players beforehand.  That's a limitation.  I won't argue the point further as you have made it for me.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 6, 2009)

@Kask- At no point did he say require. You seem to be putting words in his mouth.



Imaro said:


> D&D 3.5 DMG pg. 129 said:
> 
> 
> 
> > A world is a fictional place in which a campaign is set. It's also often called a campaign setting. *A campaign requires a world in which the action takes place*, but whether you create your own world or use an already established setting, the campaign you run is always your own...



Emphasis mine.

I think that this kind of thing is what the OP is making a case against. The advice has been:

1) Campaigns need a World.
2) See the chapter on worldbulding for advice on how to create a detailed World.
3) Campaigns are made of Adventures.
4) Adventures are made of Encounters.

That is not at all advice about how a world can be emergent from a campaign. Campaigns need a world =/= campaigns create a world.

I think that advice on how to focus on the action around the PCs and advice on how to make sure that your emergent world is consistent would be better than conventional worldbuilding for both beginning and casual gamers, as well as gamers with limited time.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 6, 2009)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> @Kask- At no point did he say require. You seem to be putting words in his mouth.
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> ...




Are you purposefully ignoring the inside out method?  It addresses what is generally needed as the bare minimum to structure an adventure in and expands as the characters grow.  This exactly the advice you all are argueing for but it is still classified as worldbuilding in the DMG.  Honestly this is where part of the confusion (and thus the whole exchange with Hussar and Rounser about my definition of worldbuilding.), IMHO, is arising.  I would argue my definition of worldbuilding is very much consistent with what is generally considered worldbuilding (as shown by the excerpts I quoted), and in fact it is they who are renamming and reclassifying elements of wordbuilding in a bid to create a distinction between parts of the world that really doesn't exsist.  

Hussar is calling this "setting"-building when in fact it falls under the category of what is considered worldbuilding.  The thing is I haven't seen either him or rounser give a true definition of what falls under "setting" and what falls under "worldbuilding" according to how they're choosing to use the words.  All I've seen is the arbitrary declaration of almost any element of the world that the PC's can interact with as "setting" for the adventure.  Yet ultimately, especially in a sandbox campaign this is meaningless since a PC can, theoretically interact with anything in the world and thus the entirety of the world becomes "setting".  Furthermore it draws no distinction in the type of interaction necessary... is the creation of a pantheon of deities worldbuilding or setting?  Does the answer change dependent upon if one of the PC's is a follower of the pantheon?  What if they seek out a priest of a particular deity in the pantheon? 

 Here's another example... Your adventurers will need a "homebase"... now if you detail a village that sits next to the dungeon, is that worldbuilding?  What if this homebase is only where PC's buy equipment only to go back to the dungeon?  The adventure is the encounters in the dungeon, the village is not explicitely a part of this and the PC's could choose to never interact with the village... so is it setting or an element of the world?

Finally, again , I'm confused... what exactly does "conventional" world building advocate?  I use both inside-out and outside-in depending on the type of campaign I want... personally though,  I see the casual, beginning DM best served by the inside-out method of worldbuilding and am curious to hear why you and others feel this method would be bad for a beginner or casual DM?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 6, 2009)

Imaro:  The opening I quoted was from the 3.0 DMG, if the 3.5 is different, I wouldn't know.  But, considering your own quote includes the line that world building is a necessity, then, I'm not sure what the difference really is.  

As far as your definition goes, you're pretty much stuck with lumping everything under world building.  By your own admission, world building overlaps with NPC creation, adventure building, etc.  I find this definition far too broad and doesn't serve the purpose very well.

Yes, there is a lengthy section on how to build an adventure.  That's great.  But, I wasn't talking about that.  I was talking about the Campaign creation section (which in the 3.0 DMG directly specifies either using a pregen setting or going on to the next chapter which is... World building.).  Which, in my mind is not the best way to create a campaign.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 6, 2009)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Are you purposefully ignoring the inside out method? It addresses what is generally needed as the bare minimum to structure an adventure in and expands as the characters grow. This exactly the advice you all are argueing for but it is still classified as worldbuilding in the DMG. Honestly this is where part of the confusion (and thus the whole exchange with Hussar and Rounser about my definition of worldbuilding.), IMHO, is arising. I would argue my definition of worldbuilding is very much consistent with what is generally considered worldbuilding (as shown by the excerpts I quoted), and in fact it is they who are renamming and reclassifying elements of wordbuilding in a bid to create a distinction between parts of the world that really doesn't exsist.




The problem with inside out world building is that you are still crafting setting for its own sake, not for the sake of the campaign.  It doesn't matter if you start micro or start macro, whenever your focus leaves the campaign at hand and goes into building beyond that, I think that's bad advice.

OTOH, looking at what you detail for your campaign world, I'd barely call that world building at all.  You've got adventure locations and character generation rules.  If that's what you consider to be world building, then congratulations, we're completely on the same page.  You've adopted exactly what I'm talking about.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 6, 2009)

Hussar said:


> As far as your definition goes, you're pretty much stuck with lumping everything under world building.  By your own admission, world building overlaps with NPC creation, adventure building, etc.  I find this definition far too broad and doesn't serve the purpose very well.




Actually what I'm saying is that the source you site looks at worldbuilding in this manner and thus if you're using it as a reference to make your points... you should use it's definition otherwise you're being misleading.  It doesn't matter what my definition or your definition of worldbuilding is... if you're arguing against the recent and common emphasis on worldbuilding in a game ... shouldn't you also be examining what that source considers worldbuilding and how that relates to what you're talking about?  If they use worldbuilding vs. your designated "setting" but address everything you're talking about the only distinction is that you've choseen to make up your own word for what is considered by the authors of the DMG to fall under worldbuilding.



Hussar said:


> Yes, there is a lengthy section on how to build an adventure.  That's great.  But, I wasn't talking about that.  I was talking about the Campaign creation section (which in the 3.0 DMG directly specifies either using a pregen setting or going on to the next chapter which is... World building.).  Which, in my mind is not the best way to create a campaign.




Well again I can only reference the 3.5 books, but by my quote above it clearly lays out the fact that a campaign is made of adventures and the "world" is where these adventures take place... of course since supposedly in chapter 3 you read over 60 pages on adventures... they don't need to go over that again so they address the other aspect of it... worldbuilding.  I'm sorry you've chosen to try and make a distinction between "setting" vs. "worldbuilding" (which I find you still haven't specified exactly what it entails) when the DMG doesn't ascribe to your definitions, yet addresses exactly what you are arguing for.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 6, 2009)

Hussar said:


> The problem with inside out world building is that you are still crafting setting for its own sake, not for the sake of the campaign.  It doesn't matter if you start micro or start macro, whenever your focus leaves the campaign at hand and goes into building beyond that, I think that's bad advice.




I call Shenanigans on this.  There is no way you can only create what the campaign (and honestly how you're using this word in this post is a little confusing) at hand needs...unless your improvising 100%.  The minute you make something the PC's choose not to interact with guess what?  You made something that has no relevance to the campaign at hand.  Unless you can determine everything your PC's will do, need or want...eventually they will either need something you have not created or ignore something you have... though you may have believed they needed it for the adventure.  Again the only way to do what you are proposing is to railroad or improvise 100%.  



Hussar said:


> OTOH, looking at what you detail for your campaign world, I'd barely call that world building at all.  You've got adventure locations and character generation rules.  If that's what you consider to be world building, then congratulations, we're completely on the same page.  You've adopted exactly what I'm talking about.




Assume much?  You're taking examples I used in a post because you still haven't clarified the line between "setting" and worldbuilding and assuming that's all I detail for my campaign....uhm, ok but like I said earlier my method depends on the type of campaign I want to run.

 How is a detailed village homebase  an "adventure location"?  What adventure is taking place here?  Your definition of setting is so vague it is confusing and pointless.  I ask questions to get clarification and you continually avoid answering the questions in a direct manner.  Seriously, why didn't you just state if they were "setting" and if the conditionals in any way changed that?


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Are you purposefully ignoring the inside out method?  It addresses what is generally needed as the bare minimum to structure an adventure in and expands as the characters grow...*snip*...I would argue my definition of worldbuilding is very much consistent with what is generally considered worldbuilding (as shown by the excerpts I quoted), and in fact it is they who are renamming and reclassifying elements of wordbuilding in a bid to create a distinction between parts of the world that really doesn't exsist.



I am certainly not ignoring the inside out method. You definition is pretty consistent with the definition of worldbuilding in the 3.5 DMG. There definitely has been an attempt to redefine and reclassify things to create distinction, and yes, the distinction does exist. That is the point, and is not at all a bad thing. It is the act of knowledge creation. Adding definition to our knowledge base.



Imaro said:


> All I've seen is the arbitrary declaration of almost any element of the world that the PC's can interact with as "setting" for the adventure.  Yet ultimately, especially in a sandbox campaign this is meaningless since a PC can, theoretically interact with anything in the world and thus the entirety of the world becomes "setting".



In my definition, it is not what they interact with, it is that the creation is directed AT the PCs. To directly create the story of the PCs. In this case,  setting creation would be completely contrary to the conventional idea of what is a sandbox, as sandbox play requires a series of assumptions that are contrary to structuring play solely directed at the PCs.

The point is that in sandbox play, the DM decides what is there, and creates excess so that the players "have a choice". The thing is, the choice is still limited to a list of what the DM decides to give them. This is worldbuilding. With the style of play consistent with my definition of setting creation, the players and DM together decide the goals and theme of the game, create characters that will allow them to explore these goals and themes, and then the DM gives them a plot that allows the characters to make choices that explore the theme. The world in a setting oriented game is emergent from both the players and the DM. This is drastically different than traditional worldbuilding, especially sandbox play.



Imaro said:


> Here's another example... Your adventurers will need a "homebase"... now if you detail a village that sits next to the dungeon, is that worldbuilding?  What if this homebase is only where PC's buy equipment only to go back to the dungeon?  The adventure is the encounters in the dungeon, the village is not explicitely a part of this and the PC's could choose to never interact with the village... so is it setting or an element of the world?



Let us say that a "home base" has been designed. The "home base" is setting creation if it is created with the PCs story in mind. It will be restricted to addressing theme, plot, goals of play, or characterization, and details will be added to facilitate this. If it is created because we think that we need a "home base", but not for reasons of plot, goals of play, theme, or for characterization, it is not setting creation, even if the characters interact with it. If the characters never interact with it, this "home base" by definition never addresses the concerns of setting, so it has to be world building. Campaigns with themes, goals, plots, or characters that do not need a "home base" only have it as a consequence of worldbuilding. The setting doesn't require it.



Imaro said:


> Finally, again , I'm confused... what exactly does "conventional" world building advocate?  I use both inside-out and outside-in depending on the type of campaign I want... personally though,  I see the casual, beginning DM best served by the inside-out method of worldbuilding and am curious to hear why you and others feel this method would be bad for a beginner or casual DM?




For world building, the inside out method is by far the best one for a casual gamer. The thing is, advice on what elements to include in prep does not really require all that worldbuilding implies. Concentrate on what will create good adventures. These are what make up a campaign. Good campaigns are a string of good adventures, especially when they link well. Adventures are necessary for a campaign. Worldbuilding, even the inside out method, is not necessary for a good campaign.

Obviously most games fall somewhere between pure worldbuiding and pure setting creation. This is fine. I am just trying to clarify what is setting and what is world. When this is clarified, then we can say "Create adventures. Concentrate on setting. Any world building you do is extra."

There _are_ elements of world building that are high yield for someone that only wants to create setting. These are typically very drag-and-drop in nature, and many take advantage of reskinning. Strangely enough, language creation is likely very high yield for those that have both the time and the talent. It will create a level of immersion that is pretty unparalelled, and give a fantastic illusion that the world exists outside the PCs, even if none of it does. Game mechanics are another way to reinforce both the illusion of the world as well as the theme of a game. Reskinning classes/races will add a lot to the theme of a campaign without creating a lot of stuff that won't be used.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 6, 2009)

Hussar said:


> By your own admission, world building overlaps with NPC creation, adventure building, etc.  I find this definition far too broad and doesn't serve the purpose very well.





What purpose, exactly, doesn't it serve?

Fish are animals, salmon are fish, this particular creature is a salmon.

"Animals" is a broad set that describes a number of living creatures.

"Fish" is a subset of animals that describes a limited number of living creatures within the original set.

"Salmon" is a subset of fish, that describes a limited number of living creatures within the "fish" subset.

The specific salmon pointed out is an example of a thing that can correctly be defined as a salmon, a fish, an animal, and in a plethora of other ways.

Because "Animals" doesn't narrowly define a particular instance (i.e., "This Creature") does not mean that the terms "Animals", "Fish", or "Salmon" are too broad -- they describe rather specificially a particular set or subset.

Likewise, world-building is an overarching set, akin to "Animals", wherein there are a number of overlapping subsets.  I get that you don't like what the terms mean.  However, your not liking what the terms mean doesn't change their meaning.

If you focused on the particular subset of world-building that you dislike, it would be a lot easier to see what merit your points may have.


RC


----------



## Imaro (Apr 6, 2009)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> I am certainly not ignoring the inside out method. You definition is pretty consistent with the definition of worldbuilding in the 3.5 DMG. There definitely has been an attempt to redefine and reclassify things to create distinction, and yes, the distinction does exist. That is the point, and is not at all a bad thing. It is the act of knowledge creation. Adding definition to our knowledge base.




Thank you, I felt the same way... but there apparently was a disconnect with Hussar and rounser when it came to how I was defining worldbuilding, when in fact I felt it was they who reclassified and renamed things... yet have not, IMO, clearly and concisely stated the distinction that has been created in their new definitions and word use.  I don't know if I agree with you that this distinction exists in the way you all are presenting it (as seperate from worldbuilding) or that it is necessarily "Adding definition to our knowledge base." so much as creating a distinction I believe is minimal at best and boils down to methodology (as another subset of inside-out, outside-in, etc.) worldbuilding at best.  YMMV of course.




PrecociousApprentice said:


> In my definition, it is not what they interact with, it is that the creation is directed AT the PCs. To directly create the story of the PCs. In this case,  setting creation would be completely contrary to the conventional idea of what is a sandbox, as sandbox play requires a series of assumptions that are contrary to structuring play solely directed at the PCs.
> 
> The point is that in sandbox play, the DM decides what is there, and creates excess so that the players "have a choice". The thing is, the choice is still limited to a list of what the DM decides to give them. This is worldbuilding. With the style of play consistent with my definition of setting creation, the players and DM together decide the goals and theme of the game, create characters that will allow them to explore these goals and themes, and then the DM gives them a plot that allows the characters to make choices that explore the theme. The world in a setting oriented game is emergent from both the players and the DM. This is drastically different than traditional worldbuilding, especially sandbox play.




First let me say thank you for defining what it is you mean with "setting" creation.  Second this still IMO, isn't a good way to have new or casual DM's go into creating their first campaign.

  First it assumes that PC's actually exist before gameplay begins... yet conventional (and IMO correct) wisdom says create your characters and run the first adventure on the same day so as not to loose momentum.  Thus many casual or new DM's may be forced to create with no prior knowledge of who, or what the PC's in their game will be, what the themes are or many other things.


IMO, rather than try to improv 100% after character creation or stop the game (perhaps not even getting to play) until everyone as a group has hashed out theme, goals, etc.  A new or casual DM is much better served by creating in general terms what is mostly likely needed for the world to facilitate gameplay.  Also this assumes a new player is even concerned or interested in constructing these things when they've just started playing.  IMO, themes goals etc. can evolve naturally through play but I don't think it's a good idea to have players who are new or casual building themes and goals, before ever touching a die. 




PrecociousApprentice said:


> Let us say that a "home base" has been designed. The "home base" is setting creation if it is created with the PCs story in mind. It will be restricted to addressing theme, plot, goals of play, or characterization, and details will be added to facilitate this. If it is created because we think that we need a "home base", but not for reasons of plot, goals of play, theme, or for characterization, it is not setting creation, even if the characters interact with it. If the characters never interact with it, this "home base" by definition never addresses the concerns of setting, so it has to be world building. Campaigns with themes, goals, plots, or characters that do not need a "home base" only have it as a consequence of worldbuilding. The setting doesn't require it.




So you're telling me the best way for a new or casual DM to get a game going is to have everyone come over to *play* D&D and then spend hours creating characters, discussing theme, figuring out goals and then giving the DM some time to sketch out what is necessary and design an adventure... I don't see it.  Getting new and casual players to actually play is what is mosyt important, IMO, and this is best done by already having things in place for them to interact with.  Again this is about new and/or casual DM's not experienced or invested players.




PrecociousApprentice said:


> For world building, the inside out method is by far the best one for a casual gamer. The thing is, advice on what elements to include in prep does not really require all that worldbuilding implies. Concentrate on what will create good adventures. These are what make up a campaign. Good campaigns are a string of good adventures, especially when they link well. Adventures are necessary for a campaign. Worldbuilding, even the inside out method, is not necessary for a good campaign.




I think perhaps you are confused about what the inside-out method has you detail in worldbuilding.  It exspressly advises you to create only what is necessary for play.  You seem to be hung up on the fact that it tells you to guesstimate what may be necessary for play as opposed to sitting down for hours with new players to construct only what is necessary... I don't see your method as well suited to new or casual players.

Even though you, Hussar and rounser claim worldbuilding isn't necessary for a "good" campaign I think you're wrong.  Firsyt a "good" campaign is a purely subjective thing and while adventures are definitely necessary to have a campaign period... adventures, even "good" ones (however we choose to judge them) will not create a "good" campaign for a player who wants to explore a world as opposed to go on adventure after adventure.  That's one of the problems with the tenor of this whole thread, there are many posters using words like "good" with thier own oppinions on what "good" is stated asfact... you don't know what makes a "good" campaign for everyone and it is likely for many an interesting and intriguing world can make an average campaign a "good" one.



PrecociousApprentice said:


> Obviously most games fall somewhere between pure worldbuiding and pure setting creation. This is fine. I am just trying to clarify what is setting and what is world. When this is clarified, then we can say "Create adventures. Concentrate on setting. Any world building you do is extra."




And even though I don't agree that your method is better for new or casual DM's (or even that a distinction between setting and worldbuilding is in any way necessary) I do thank you and appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to clarify your position.



PrecociousApprentice said:


> There _are_ elements of world building that are high yield for someone that only wants to create setting. These are typically very drag-and-drop in nature, and many take advantage of reskinning. Strangely enough, language creation is likely very high yield for those that have both the time and the talent. It will create a level of immersion that is pretty unparalelled, and give a fantastic illusion that the world exists outside the PCs, even if none of it does. Game mechanics are another way to reinforce both the illusion of the world as well as the theme of a game. Reskinning classes/races will add a lot to the theme of a campaign without creating a lot of stuff that won't be used.




Hey you'll get no disagreement from me, but then I don't think worldbuilding is a waste of time anymore than I think creating terrain, making props, using voices at the table, or vivid descriptions is a waste of time... IMO, they all add something to the game, now whether each of these suits your particular style as a DM or not is for each to decide on his own.


----------



## Ourph (Apr 6, 2009)

Kask said:


> Bingo!  My point made.  You require of your players beforehand.  That's a limitation.  I won't argue the point further as you have made it for me.



Seriously?



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I ask my players



Whose posts are you reading?


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> First let me say thank you for defining what it is you mean with "setting" creation.  Second this still IMO, isn't a good way to have new or casual DM's go into creating their first campaign.



No problem. This is a perfect example of how reasonable people can reasonably dsiagree. It is OK if you like things different.



Imaro said:


> First it assumes that PC's actually exist before gameplay begins... yet conventional (and IMO correct) wisdom says create your characters and run the first adventure on the same day so as not to loose momentum.  Thus many casual or new DM's may be forced to create with no prior knowledge of who, or what the PC's in their game will be, what the themes are or many other things.
> 
> 
> IMO, rather than try to improv 100% after character creation or stop the game (perhaps not even getting to play) until everyone as a group has hashed out theme, goals, etc.  A new or casual DM is much better served by creating in general terms what is mostly likely needed for the world to facilitate gameplay.  Also this assumes a new player is even concerned or interested in constructing these things when they've just started playing.  IMO, themes goals etc. can evolve naturally through play but I don't think it's a good idea to have players who are new or casual building themes and goals, before ever touching a die.



Here is where we disagree. Deciding on goals and themes are not hard, shouldn't take long, and are actually necessary for players to get a consistent and cohesive idea of what the point of the campaign is and what it is about. 

Player A: "Lets play a light hearted game that is not too serious. I would like something action packed. Maybe something like Indiana Jones, only somewhat campy, and set in the renaissance." 
DM: "Cool, like three musketeers meets Indiana Jones, as if it were written by Shakespear?" 
Player B: "That sounds great. This means tomb raiding, right?"
Player C: "Tomb raiding and Romance!"
ALL: "No!"
Player A: "Action and camp with tombraiding, no romance!"
ALL: "Great."

Less than 2 minutes, and we have our goals and our themes. 



Imaro said:


> So you're telling me the best way for a new or casual DM to get a game going is to have everyone come over to *play* D&D and then spend hours creating characters, discussing theme, figuring out goals and then giving the DM some time to sketch out what is necessary and design an adventure... I don't see it.  Getting new and casual players to actually play is what is most important, IMO, and this is best done by already having things in place for them to interact with.  Again this is about new and/or casual DM's not experienced or invested players.




I agree with the comment about getting players playing as soon as possible. It might actually be better to have completely new players start with pregens. Get right into the action. After they all have an idea of play and want to start their own campaigns, then all this advice would be better used.

Even after players have played a few games, getting them playing as soon as possible is a good idea. Taken from the example above, Players A, B, and C create characters that fit a campy action adventure story with tombraider characters, filling in a little bit of details about their character's backstories to form a cohesive group that fulfills these goals and themes. Some aspects of the world are sketched out this way. Not much beyond what most campaigns do, just that the players can help set the stage for the campaign. Meanwhile, the DM takes an encounter and reskins it to fit the theme and goals, as well as the characters. Minimal improv. Just maybe a couple of combat encounters and a social or other RP encounter. Feel free to thoroughly rip off a book, movie, or play. This all should take less than an hour, especially in more rules light systems. Then you play through the first few encounters. People are excited, the game gets going, and the DM has gotten a great clue as to what sort of campaign he should focus on creating. He then has lots to go off of for preping the next session. This should take no more than the usual time for creating characters.

Letting goals and theme emerge from play holds to possibility of creating a game that some players would not be interested in. Many of the campaigns that I created using world building have fallen prey to player apathy. I would rather communicate about it before I put any work into it.



Imaro said:


> I think perhaps you are confused about what the inside-out method has you detail in worldbuilding.  It exspressly advises you to create only what is necessary for play.  You seem to be hung up on the fact that it tells you to guesstimate what may be necessary for play as opposed to sitting down for hours with new players to construct only what is necessary... I don't see your method as well suited to new or casual players.



No need for hours with the players to prep. A very short time is fine.

The thing is, the inside out method tells you to create a world, even if you are starting from where the game starts. It is definitely a snowballing method, but it doesn't say that the adventure is the most important part. It says campaigns are made of adventures and they need a world. They don't. They need an adventure. Something for the characters to do. World is not necessary. 



Imaro said:


> (A) "good" campaign is a purely subjective thing and while adventures are definitely necessary to have a campaign period... adventures, even "good" ones (however we choose to judge them) will not create a "good" campaign for a player who wants to explore a world as opposed to go on adventure after adventure.



That is where defining goals and deciding on themes comes in. Adventures can be created that address the goal and themes of "exploration". Movies do it all the time. There is no world outside of the movie. It is self contained. But the goals and themes of exploration can happen in a movie.

I think that if one were to clarify and set goals for play, decide on themes, create characters that are able to address these goals and themes, and then the DM creates a plot (Adventure, even if the themes are of exploration), we would be more likely to get the games that all of the players including the DM want, and with the minimum prep time for everyone. By focusing on what the game will be like and what the players and the characters DO instead of where they ARE, you end up with a greater likelihood of good games.

It has drastically increased my enjoyment of my games, and has resulted in fewer failed campaigns for me. Everyone is different, but my experiences have definitely been positive.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Apr 6, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Honestly, for the "casual crowd," this is how D&D *has* to be played. No pre-prep, just game. If you run a module, a lot of this work has presumably been done beforehand, but even then, PC's can always take a course that the adventure writer didn't have in mind.




There are three ways to accomplish this:

(1) Purchased scenarios.

(2) Procedurally generated content. (Random monsters, random dungeons.)

(3) Improv.

The first is pretty well covered. The second is effective for some things, but generally ineffective at generating entire scenarios (since the resulting scenarios are generally incoherent and unsatisfying).

The third seems to be what you're aiming for, but the distinction between pre-prep and improv in terms of output is almost nonexistent if you're doing your pre-prep right. The only real difference is that improv requires you to come up with those answers on-demand and on-the-fly, whereas pre-prep allows you to take time and make the decisions with careful consideration.

I think the reality at most gaming tables is a mixture of all three: Published scenarios are supplements with procedurally-generated content (which is improved and made coherent through on-the-spot improv).



> The "casual crowd" is probably a statistical rarity for D&D, but it probably shouldn't be, going forward. If D&D ever wants to grab the broader, non-obsessive segment of the market, they're going to have to eliminate the concept of pre-prep almost entirely, so that all a DM has to do for the game is sit down at the table and PLAY.




This, BTW, is why _Keep on the Borderlands_ was such a great introductory module to package into the _Basic Set_. You could grab that module and play every day for a week before "exhausting" the material.

And since the early editions of the game had comprehensive rules for restocking a dungeon with procedurally-generated content, it would take you about five minutes to restock the "exhausted" Caves of Chaos and go back in.



> In that respect, worldbuilding cannot be necessary, even a little bit, if that is to be a goal. It can be helpful and fun for those who are into it (so that if you like it, you can do it, and it can be rewarding), but it can't be something that every DM has to do a little bit of. It has to be something that can be ignored.




Even professional improv actors use pre-planned scenarios. People who can just whip out interesting and entertaining material without any kind of pre-prepared structure are extremely rare.

Making D&D rely on the presence of such a person at the gaming table will make the game about as "accessible" as publishing a boardgame with a blank board on the supposition that someone at the table will be able to whip up an entertaining boardgame on-the-spot.



Hussar said:


> The problem with inside out world building is that you are still crafting setting for its own sake, not for the sake of the campaign. It doesn't matter if you start micro or start macro, whenever your focus leaves the campaign at hand and goes into building beyond that, I think that's bad advice.




Your definition of "world building" appears to be "whatever doesn't get used or seen by the players". Others are pointing out that what the players "use or see" is often difficult to predict and sometimes mutually exclusive: If the players choose route A instead of route B, is all the work I did on route B suddenly "world building" that I shouldn't have been doing? And, conversely, if they choose route B instead of route A, is all the work I did on route A something I shouldn't have been doing?

Perhaps we can narrow in on this by looking at a very specific example.

(1) The entire adventure/camapign is going to be set in the Inn of the Good Hearth.

(2) Now, I'm designing the Inn of the Good Hearth and I include:

- Floorplan and location key
- Detailed NPC write-ups on all staff and guests
- An inventory of the wines in the cellar
- The weekly menu
- A history of the inn

At what point did I move into the "bad advice" you allude to?



PrecociousApprentice said:


> It says campaigns are made of adventures and they need a world. They don't. They need an adventure. Something for the characters to do. World is not necessary.




In practice, I don't see the distinction.

The Inn of the Good Hearth? Part of the world.

The dungeon below the Inn of the Good Hearth? Part of the world.

The village in which the Inn of the Good Hearth is located? Part of the world.

The roads leading out of the village? Part of the world.

The goblin-infested woods through which the North Road runs? Part of the world.

The city to the north of the goblin-infested woods? Part of the world.

The kingdom of which the city is the capital? Part of the world.

Is the capital irrelevant to the "get rid of the goblins" adventure? Maybe. Unless, of course, the PCs decide to head to the capital to ask the king to send soldiers to the goblin-infested woods.

Is the vilage irrelevant to the "explore the dungeon" adventure? Maybe. Unless, of course, the PCs want to buy supplies.

And so forth.

Everything that makes up an adventure is, in fact, part of the world. When you create that stuff, you're building a world. You're doing it with a specific agenda and methodology, but that doesn't mean it's not world-building.

(And that's not even broaching the subject of what happens when the adventure is, "Explore the world." Or even, as in the style of LOTR, "Get from Point A to Point B by whatever path you can.")



> I think that if one were to clarify and set goals for play, decide on themes, create characters that are able to address these goals and themes, and then the DM creates a plot (Adventure, even if the themes are of exploration)...




Don't Prep Plots.

Which may be part of the problem here: To at least some extent, you appear to be railroading and are arguing that the only thing you need are the tracks and the train -- the scenery isn't important. Other people are saying, "Yeah, but what do you do when the players decide to get off the train?"

The question is, apparently, meaningless to you because it would never occur to you that the players might get off the train. (Because it is, after all, a really well-designed train.)


----------



## Imaro (Apr 6, 2009)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> Here is where we disagree. Deciding on goals and themes are not hard, shouldn't take long, and are actually necessary for players to get a consistent and cohesive idea of what the point of the campaign is and what it is about.




In a perfect setup with a perfect world, deciding on goals and themes are not hard... I would even go so far as to say that with an experienced group who has played together for awhile it isn't hard either.  But for a group of new players it's akin to asking what type of fantasy or action movies do you like.  Sure, there's a possibility everyone will say Lord of the Rings... but there's also the more likely possibility one or two people want a Conan-esque game, two others want LotR and a final wants something akin to the Berserk anime.  While casual gamers, in all honesty, probably won't be too concerned with a particular theme except adventure fantasy. 

 For these reasons I think for a *new* DM, it's better for him to just decide and ask the players if a theme is acceptable, of course he can tweak it a little but giving this type of wide open question to new or casual players ususally, IMO, results in alot of hem hawwing and accomplishes little for the amount of time it takes.



PrecociousApprentice said:


> Player A: "Lets play a light hearted game that is not too serious. I would like something action packed. Maybe something like Indiana Jones, only somewhat campy, and set in the renaissance."
> DM: "Cool, like three musketeers meets Indiana Jones, as if it were written by Shakespear?"
> Player B: "That sounds great. This means tomb raiding, right?"
> Player C: "Tomb raiding and Romance!"
> ...




Yes, it does tend to work out like that in a perfect world...I wonder what would happen if this was tried at a D&D gameday, Gen Con or RPGA event game with 5 to 6 players all new, with varied tastes?




PrecociousApprentice said:


> I agree with the comment about getting players playing as soon as possible. It might actually be better to have completely new players start with pregens. Get right into the action. After they all have an idea of play and want to start their own campaigns, then all this advice would be better used.




I disagree with the pre-gen suggestion only because I think this can be for many, though not necessarily all, players a major draw to the game... and without it they may miss something that would have perhaps kept them interested in it.  Something interesting to do would have quick PC creation and detailed creation... sort of like how 4e's NPC's are created.  That way a person could still have ownership in a character without investing an elaborate amount of time.  Just a thought though.



PrecociousApprentice said:


> Even after players have played a few games, getting them playing as soon as possible is a good idea. Taken from the example above, Players A, B, and C create characters that fit a campy action adventure story with tombraider characters, filling in a little bit of details about their character's backstories to form a cohesive group that fulfills these goals and themes.* Some aspects of the world are sketched out this way. Not much beyond what most campaigns do, just that the players can help set the stage for the campaign.* Meanwhile, the DM takes an encounter and reskins it to fit the theme and goals, as well as the characters. Minimal improv. Just maybe a couple of combat encounters and a social or other RP encounter. Feel free to thoroughly rip off a book, movie, or play. This all should take less than an hour, especially in more rules light systems. Then you play through the first few encounters. People are excited, the game gets going, and the DM has gotten a great clue as to what sort of campaign he should focus on creating. He then has lots to go off of for preping the next session. This should take no more than the usual time for creating characters.




Emphasis mine...and yet worldbuilding, even if minimal was still necessary.  Yes the methodology was perhaps different... but it's still constructing the elements of the world (not the actual adventure) and thus worldbuilding.



PrecociousApprentice said:


> Letting goals and theme emerge from play holds to possibility of creating a game that some players would not be interested in. Many of the campaigns that I created using world building have fallen prey to player apathy. I would rather communicate about it before I put any work into it.
> 
> No need for hours with the players to prep. A very short time is fine.




Of course, perfect world and all that aside... I think perhaps the player apathy problem is more a failure to communicate period than based on any methodology used for worldbuilding.  I would always let my players know my ideas for worlds and gauge there interest in them beforehand, this doesn't mean they have to build them with me though to be interested in them... it also let's me know, if 5 of them say they'd pass... I probably should toss a different idea for the world their way.  Honestly most casual players aren't going to want to do anything outside of play the game...that's why they're casual.  And new players could easily be frightened off if they aren't sure about commiting or if creating as opposed to exploring isn't there idea of fun.



PrecociousApprentice said:


> The thing is, the inside out method tells you to create a world, even if you are starting from where the game starts. It is definitely a snowballing method, but it doesn't say that the adventure is the most important part. It says campaigns are made of adventures and they need a world. They don't. They need an adventure. Something for the characters to do. World is not necessary.




I feel like you haven't actually read the chapter you're talking about, of course I could be wrong.  You see I have a few problems with your above statements...

1.  It clearly states adventures are the building blocks of campaigns.
2.  The book uses "world" in the way you and others have chosen to use 
     the word "setting" yet even you admit this is necessary for theme and 
     goal exploration. 
3.  I feel like 90% or more of this argument is the semantic game of setting 
    vs. worldbuilding as well as the ignoring of the different types of   
    "worldbuilding" that are adressed in various rpg's



PrecociousApprentice said:


> That is where defining goals and deciding on themes comes in. Adventures can be created that address the goal and themes of "exploration". Movies do it all the time. There is no world outside of the movie. It is self contained. But the goals and themes of exploration can happen in a movie.




And yet even in that movie there are things that have nothing to do with the "adventure"... like the numerous people, buildings,animals, actions, etc.taking place in the background...in fact I would go so far as to say unless done to make a specific point, a movie without these things would be looked at as strange by most viewers.  If a movie is set in a city and there are no other people except the protagonist and who he directly interacts with, no buildings except the ones he actually enters, and so on... I would consider it astrange movie.  And if, as you say this is all unnecessary why don't film makers save all that money and ignore these inconsequential things?




PrecociousApprentice said:


> I think that if one were to clarify and set goals for play, decide on themes, create characters that are able to address these goals and themes, and then the DM creates a plot (Adventure, even if the themes are of exploration), we would be more likely to get the games that all of the players including the DM want, and with the minimum prep time for everyone. By focusing on what the game will be like and what the players and the characters DO instead of where they ARE, you end up with a greater likelihood of good games.




I disagree, I mean I respect you feel this way, but really I don't see people totally new or casual investing in the game like this until they've become more intrigued or less casual about it.  YMMV, but I don't think you are new or casual and thus that is why it may work very well for you and your group.




PrecociousApprentice said:


> It has drastically increased my enjoyment of my games, and has resulted in fewer failed campaigns for me. Everyone is different, but my experiences have definitely been positive.




In the end I think this is what's most important, however thinking what works best for you and thinking what works best for othersisn't always the same thing, especially when it comes to beginners or casuals versus those experienced in or with the game.  YMMV of course.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 6, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> The third seems to be what you're aiming for, but the distinction between pre-prep and improv in terms of output is almost nonexistent if you're doing your pre-prep right. The only real difference is that improv requires you to come up with those answers on-demand and on-the-fly, whereas pre-prep allows you to take time and make the decisions with careful consideration.



The other big distinction is that with improv, you don't need to come up with anything extra. Pre-planning gives the advantage of plenty of time to consider, with the drawback of needing that time to consider. Otherwise you might as well have just done it at the table, and ensured that you would use the work that you put into it.



Beginning of the End said:


> Even professional improv actors use pre-planned scenarios. People who can just whip out interesting and entertaining material without any kind of pre-prepared structure are extremely rare.



I am not advocating structureless games. I am advocating prioritizing what structures that you create, and be careful about what structures that you become wed to. That way lies the railroad.



Beginning of the End said:


> Your definition of "world building" appears to be "whatever doesn't get used or seen by the players". Others are pointing out that what the players "use or see" is often difficult to predict and sometimes mutually exclusive: If the players choose route A instead of route B, is all the work I did on route B suddenly "world building" that I shouldn't have been doing? And, conversely, if they choose route B instead of route A, is all the work I did on route A something I shouldn't have been doing?



It is not that you shouldn't have done it. It is that you want to avoid doing unnecessary things.



Beginning of the End said:


> Which may be part of the problem here: To at least some extent, you appear to be railroading and are arguing that the only thing you need are the tracks and the train -- the scenery isn't important. Other people are saying, "Yeah, but what do you do when the players decide to get off the train?"



No railroad. the willingness to improv can eliminate the rails. I advocate not detailing too much, so that you eliminate the rails. Everyone "railroads" to some degree if they prep but not improvise. Having a defined world creates a form of railroad. Your citation about designng "situations" not plot is not bad. I think having an idea of what players want, including goals, theme, and characters, will give you a great idea as to how to address those elements. Maybe you do not prefer the term "plot", and maybe there is a better word, but the idea that you prep in ways that will always directly address as many of those things as possible is sound. Always prep in a way that directly addresses goals of play, themes, and characters, with an aim at creating a cohesive, progressive game. Is that better than "plot"?



Beginning of the End said:


> The question is, apparently, meaningless to you because it would never occur to you that the players might get off the train. (Because it is, after all, a really well-designed train.)



Now you are just being insulting. I have never advocated an unbranching sequence. Never have I said that adventures should be designed with a structure of A->B->C->END. Creating flexible elements that work in a variety of ways, elements that you seem to prefer to call "situations" instead of plot points, does not imply linearity. 



			
				Cited Artice said:
			
		

> "The villains have escaped on two ships heading towards Tarsis. One of the villains transforms during the voyage into a terrible monster and kills the crew, leaving the ship floating as a derelict outside the coastal waters of Tharsis. At such-and-such a time, the ship will be spotted by the Tharsis navy. The other villains have reached the Temple of Olympus atop Mt. Tharsis and assumed cover identities."



This is fine design, as long as the goals of play, themes of play, and characters involved in play are addressed by this "scenario". I will assume that all of these things are addresed. This is basically what I mean when I say "plot". Notice that there was only setting building. All of the elements are directed at the PCs. None are likely to be unused, unless the PCs skip things or ingore the prep entirely. This is likely a breach of social contract.



			
				Cited article said:
			
		

> (L)et's look at what we need to design this same adventure as a situation:
> 
> (1) The PCs have to pursue the villains. (This is the hook into the entire scenario. It's a potential failure point shared by all scenarios. If the PCs aren't interested in going to the red dragon's lair, it doesn't matter how you prep the lair.)



Sure.



			
				Cited article said:
			
		

> (2) You need to design the city of Tharsis. (Where is it? What's it like? What can the PCs do there? Et cetera.)



Only minimally, and only with reference to what the PCs will need for this adventure. "Sinig city on the coast, not far from the derelict ship, white marble city in Greek arcitecture style, with a huge mountain behind it." The rest can be improvised.



			
				Cited article said:
			
		

> (3) You need to design the derelict ship.
> 
> (4) You need to design the Temple of Olympus.



Sure, the parts that might be a battle site should have a map. Otherwise a short description and improv are sufficient.



			
				Cited article said:
			
		

> (5) You need to stat up the Tharsis navy, the villains, and (possibly) the survivor.



No. You need the villains' stats if you want to have a fight. Nothing else is needed. Improvise at the table if the PCs decide to fight the navy.



			
				Cited article said:
			
		

> (6) There needs to be a way for the PCs to know the villains are hiding out in the Temple of Olympus. (In the plot-based design, this is one of the failure points: They either question the survivor or they have no way of knowing where to go next. In situation-based design, you would use the Three Clue Rule and figure out two additional methods by which the PCs could reach this conclusion. This can be as simple as making a Gather Information check in Tharsis and/or questioning the captain/crew of the ship the villains took.)



Having multiple ways that the PCs might know how to progress the game has nothing to do with world building. It is aimed directly at the PCs, allowing them to navigate the "situation/plot". There is nowhere that this contradicts what has been said about creating adventures and not creating worlds. The only advice that I see in the article that is not congruent with how I do things is in his priorities for prep. Stating out the navy is a waste of time. STating out the survivor is a wast of time. Designing the Temple and the ship are mostly a waste of time. Planning for there to BE a Temple, a ship, a survivor, and a navy should be suficient. If the players decide to completely abandon what they set out to do then you can improvise.


----------



## Scribble (Apr 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> And yet even in that movie there are things that have nothing to do with the "adventure"... like the numerous people, buildings,animals, actions, etc.taking place in the background...in fact I would go so far as to say unless done to make a specific point, a movie without these things would be looked at as strange by most viewers.  If a movie is set in a city and there are no other people except the protagonist and who he directly interacts with, no buildings except the ones he actually enters, and so on... I would consider it astrange movie.  And if, as you say this is all unnecessary why don't film makers save all that money and ignore these inconsequential things?




I think you're creating an argument that doesn't exist.

I don't think anyone is advocating a game where the characters walk into the city and NOTHING exists but their characters and the villain. That's pretty silly.

But to use your movie example, they kind of do.

A film script will only barely mention background cast if at all with only a brief description. Their look and what they're actually doing only becomes relevant later (at the table so to speak) when they get put in by the art department and director.

When I used to do "background" work there was a director who just basically ad-hoced everything that we were "doing" in the scne. "You talk to that girl, you walk past the camera after the hero says "chicken feet" you sit on this stump here and pretend to be drawing in the sand... etc"

To me this is synonimous with the DM just ad-libbing a typical city scene at the table.

DM: You walk into a crowded city, the noise of the day creating a loud cacaphony of sound, the smell of daily life in a big city almost overwhelming.

And so on from there based on whether the players want more info or not.


----------



## rounser (Apr 6, 2009)

> there apparently was a disconnect with Hussar and rounser when it came to how I was defining worldbuilding, when in fact I felt it was they who reclassified and renamed things



No Imaro, it is _you_ who consistently cites stuff usually found in adventures (e.g. encounters, which aren't found in worldbuilding outside of the Wilderlands or maybe a rare book like 2E's Shadowdale book in the FR boxed set, and the exceptions prove the rule) as "worldbuilding."

Your entire argument is easily refuted by the fact that adventure paths can be converted between settings with about a page of notes.  _That's_ how irrelevant to actual play worldbuilding can be!  Cue you attacking the nature of adventure paths as a style of game you don't like, but that's just a distraction.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 6, 2009)

rounser said:


> No Imaro, it is _you_ who consistently cites stuff usually found in adventures (e.g. encounters, which aren't found in worldbuilding outside of the Wilderlands or maybe a rare book like 2E's Shadowdale book in the FR boxed set, and the exceptions prove the rule) as "worldbuilding."




Good play there rounser, citing encounters instead of the numerous other things such as NPC's, village next to a dungeon, an inn to meet in, etc. that you claim to all fall under "setting"... and again I see no explanation of what exactly "setting" when used by you means...That's it, keep attacking my arguments yet never solidifying, clarifying or explaining yur own stance in a clear and concise way so that real debate can take place. If you need an example jut look at PrecociousApprentice, he actually explained what "setting" was to him in a clear and concise manner... when are you going to step upand do the same?



rounser said:


> Your entire argument is easily refuted by the fact that adventure paths can be converted between settings with about a page of notes. _That's_ how irrelevant to actual play worldbuilding can be! Cue you attacking the nature of adventure paths as a style of game you don't like, but that's just a distraction.




Yet there is still conversion necessary based upon the world an adventure path takes place in, am I right or wrong... if you're playing in the Forgotten Realms...referencing Golarion confuses your players and causes the game to be worse. If the AP is set in a city and you describe it as taking place in a forest there's going to be problems... if there's a village next to the dungeon but you decide to instead place a hermit's shack there...again problems may arise or the feel and nature of the AP could change, of course none of these things have to be actual adventure sites to affect the overall campaign. In essence, to me, your argument is akin to saying an actual adventure isn't necessary to play the game... as long as you have a couple of encounters, you'd be perfectly right...but I already said neither of things were "necessary" to play D&D.

Again if you were actually reading and trying to comprehend what I posted instead of just attacking you would see I don't believe worldbuilding or plot is necessary. Also you would have read where I stated the type of campaign I build is dependent upon what me and my players want... so no AP's are just fine with me if that's what I and my group want.  So try again with the deflection and hyperbole please.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 7, 2009)

Imaro, I would like to address the statement you made about the type of communication that I outlined above only happening in a perfect world. I think that saying that it only happens in a perfect world is a disservice to gamers. I think that it not only happens, but it can easily happen more, as long as players are taught that this is a good way to do things.

Deciding on theme can be as simple as citing several movies that you want to emulate. Goals could be as simple as "Lets see where this takes us. We will try to game once a week until the semester ends. Nothing too serious. This isn;t the great american screanplay." It doesn't have to be complicated. Knowing what to expect at the outset is a good thing. I run a lot of one shots. Letting people know this is a good idea.

You are right that the players do not have to be given as much power as I have implied. This does not mean that the DM shouldn't think about these things, and tell the players. I have run a few PbP games that have been one shots. For these, I have told players "Here is my goal, here are the themes." Sometimes I give some pregens, sometimes I give a set of character creation instructions on how to create characters that fit the goals and themes. This has taken a lot of power away from the players, but it has gotten everyone on board as to what the goals and themes are, and has enhanced consistency of the plot and characters. The same thing can happen in con games.

In the end, the real goal is to know what the action and play elements are going to be like. Then only create for these things. You seem hesitent to call this setting creation, but I would say that it is drastically different than what happens with most worldbuilding, even the inside out method. The usual format goes like this.

GM gets an idea, designs either inside out or outside in. Gets the design to a point where he feels comfortable. He may or may not create an adventure at this time.

Then the GM pitches the idea to the players. The players are expected to learn the world well enough to create characters that fit into it. The players are expected to create motives for their characters consistent with the world that the DM has created.

Play begins, and the DM has to figure out how to motivate the characters, and the players have to figure out what the GM has prepared that wil be the most fun for everyone.

I think that a better model would be to figure out what you want to accomplish, design the characters so that they will accomplish this, and then have the DM build the adventures with the decided on fun elements and the estavblished characters in mind. Don't just hope that fun sill emerge from play. Specifically design for fun. I think that is comes down to the most efficient prioritization strategy. Establish the goals, create the things that are most important first (the characters), then create the next most important things with these characters in mind (what the characters will do/be faced with) and fill in the details from there.

Characters->Conflict->Background.

If you don't like this, another way is 

Conflict->Characters->Background

Either way, background is not nearly as important as characters and conflict.

As a last comment, these pieces of advice are not necessarily meant for beginning _players_. They are meant for beginning _DMs_. Just because you are a new DM doesn't mean that you are new to gaming. Focusing on adventures is the best thing new, and possibly most, DMs can do. It is often easier to be successful at adventure writing than it is to be successful at worldbuilding, and success begets success.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 7, 2009)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Well again I can only reference the 3.5 books, but by my quote above it clearly lays out the fact that a campaign is made of adventures and the "world" is where these adventures take place... of course since supposedly in chapter 3 you read over 60 pages on adventures... they don't need to go over that again so they address the other aspect of it... worldbuilding. I'm sorry you've chosen to try and make a distinction between "setting" vs. "worldbuilding" (which I find you still haven't specified exactly what it entails) when the DMG doesn't ascribe to your definitions, yet addresses exactly what you are arguing for.




I have defined World Building a number of times in this thread.  I know my definition differs from the one in the DMG.  THAT'S THE POINT.  I define world building thusly:

World Building - the act of creating background that is independent of plot.  The act of creating background FOR IT'S OWN PURPOSE.

Setting Building - the act of creating background that is dependent on plot.  The act of creating background TO SERVE THE GAME/STORY.

That's what I'm objecting to.  Like I said, your background, to me, from the little bit I can see, fufills my definition of Setting Building.  You have a couple of locations that presumably will feature in your campaign, probably feature regularly in the campaign as well.  The racial writeups are necessary for Character Creation and thus are serving the campaign as well.  

OTOH, you have not detailed, in other than very, very broad strokes, the history of your city.  Who founded your city?  Who were the first ten leaders of your city?  Who are the royal family (if your city has one) of your city?  

In my view, who cares?  Unless your characters have any particular reason for interacting with the royal family (and looking at your campaign notes, I'm thinking that they don't), why bother detailing it?

But, from a bottom up or top down approach, both advocate detailing that royal family.  They are fixtures of this setting.  Heck, the DMG actually goes into fairly lengthy detail that you should detail the power structures of your setting.  

The DMG, in any version, uses World Building and Campaign Building synonymously.  It actually states so in the opening of the Campaign buildling chapter that the two are synonymous.  I disagree.  I think they are not synonymous.  However, there are numerous examples out there that do make them sound that way.  The Dungeoncraft articles from Dungeon spend a few years detailing how to build a world.  

Yet, in the same magazine, you rarely (although not never) see articles on how to build a campaign divorced from what I call World Building.  You certainly don't have any multi-year monthly series on how to build your campaign without going into all the extra work of world building.

Compare the opening of the old Dungeoncraft articles from print Dungeon:



			
				Ray Winninger said:
			
		

> Last month, we resolved some basic logistical and administrative issues-how many players is best, what rulebooks to use, and so forth. With that out of the way, it's time to start creating the campaign environment.
> 
> Before we start play, before we even attempt to design our first adventure, we should flesh out the campaign world. What's our fantasy world like? What sort of adventures await our brave players?




((Now, to be fair, his first rule is "Never create more than you have to" but, then the entire series is on how to bottom up create a world))



			
				James Wyatt said:
			
		

> If I were to drop the PCs down right on one of those borders where two nations are simmering at the edge of all-out war, there'd be room for adventure there. That could be a pretty cool campaign. Maybe a city is right on the border. Maybe its people don't really consider themselves members of either nation, and they resent being fought over, but there are also plenty of immigrants from both nations living within its walls. That could be a lot of fun.
> 
> But that only works because I've switched from the big map to a very small spot on it. Once I start running that campaign, the forest with the elves and the swamp with the monsters don't matter, at least not until the campaign grows and expands to include them. In the short term, I'm better off putting time into fleshing out the city on the border and the adventure possibilities there, rather than putting another thought into what lies half a continent away.




Now, James Wyatt also goes with the bottom up start.  Again, the idea is developing the setting first and then working with the players.

It's more or less the same song and dance.

What I don't see is advice saying, "Ok, don't bother working out all this stuff first.  The first thing you need to do is sit down with your players.  Work out a number of details - theme, rough plot ideas, feel, tone, mood - with your players FIRST.  Then, go back, and quite possibly with their help, start working on creating a campaign together."

Most of the advice places the majority of the workload squarely on the DM.  

Heck, Imaro, you've done it yourself.  Did you ask your players if that was something they were interested in before you started?  Did you ask your players what kind of characters (not class/race, but rough archetypes) they wanted to play before you started?  Did you ask any questions about theme, or mood before you started?


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 7, 2009)

Hussar said:


> As a question Lanefan, do you think this would be good advice to give to DM's?  To tell them that they should do this much work with the expectation that their campaigns will last for so long?



Yes, yes, yes!

If a DM goes into a campaign thinking it'll last 6 months, it'll very likely end in about 6 months; the DM's projected that expectation on to the players, and between their expectations and hers the campaign's got a short life expectancy.

But if a DM goes into a campaign thinking "I'm prepared to run this as long as there's people willing to play it", does enough pre-design to support enough stories to keep things interesting, and sets that sort of open-ended expectation going in, then assuming the DM's any good (or the players are really tolerant!) it could and should last for many years.  It should be noted that I'm referring to the campaign here; as time goes on, player turnover is pretty much a given.


> True, but, I'd be pretty surprised to learn that any group out there has actually done what you are suggesting.  To walk into the session and abandon all ongoing campaign elements to do something that is a complete surprise to the DM?   If this has ever happened, I'm going to file it under statistical anomoly and ignore it for this conversation.  I really, really doubt that any DM has to deal with this on a regular basis.



I've both done it as a player, and had it done to me as DM.  To me, it's just another part of the game....

Lan-"where the map is blank, I'll go"-efan


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 7, 2009)

While certainly not a bad choice, I think the "multi-year, multi-campaign setting" is definitely a choice among many, be it for beginners or experienced DMs. I can certainly see the benefits of it. 

But I can also see it not being the primary choice if ones view of building the game is different, ie; like myself  

For myself when constructing what little bit of setting design I do (I do the drag-and-drop method as mentioned previous times) I design it specifically, very specifically for that campaign. All the devised campaign elements from themes, atmosphere, colour themes, types of races, NPCs, any manner of supernatual events, etc. either tie directly into the campaign and story or give it some benefit.

As such, when times comes to run another campaign, if it goes off in another direction. Say from... Gritty, Noir Thriller to High-Magic Adventure using another campaign setting is more advisable. 

Now true, in some manner I somewhat entrap myself by focusing on that particular campaign when devising the setting. But since I always have something else churning in the back of my mind, and with a lighter work load when coming up with a setting it doesn't become a issue.

Different methods and all, neither better, neither worse.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 7, 2009)

How hard is it really to accept the received definition of a gazelle (complete perhaps with the "lustrous eyes" I found in one dictionary as something there to be seen if one so looks) -- and also to prefer the awesomeness of the gamboling TOFUDABEAST?


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 7, 2009)

Hussar said:


> World Building - the act of creating background that is independent of plot.  The act of creating background FOR IT'S OWN PURPOSE.
> 
> Setting Building - the act of creating background that is dependent on plot.  The act of creating background TO SERVE THE GAME/STORY.



What about creating background where you've no idea whether it'll ever encounter the story or not - it is created for one of several possible stories that may crop up depending on in-game character decisions?


> What I don't see is advice saying, "Ok, don't bother working out all this stuff first.  The first thing you need to do is sit down with your players.  Work out a number of details - theme, rough plot ideas, feel, tone, mood - with your players FIRST.  Then, go back, and quite possibly with their help, start working on creating a campaign together."



It's good that you don't see it, because that's awful advice!

Set up the general world and at least one adventure first, then invite players to play in it.  For my current campaign, my sum-up went something like "It's D+D. It'll use the same homebrew rule-set we've been using all along, with a few tweaks.  The setting to start with will be classical-Greek based, but think Xena more than Homer.  Most other historical cultures exist somewhere in the world.  Gnomes and Hobbits will be much less common than you're used to.  You in?"

Note that I say *nothing* about plot!  They can figure that out - or not - as they go along; as well as how the cultures inter-relate, where they are, and so forth.

And it'd be even more pointless following your advice (above) with new players, who don't even know what a "campaign" is.  That said, if all your players are new to the game you probably *don't* need to design very much at all going in; you can pretty much wing it all and they'll not know the difference at least for long enough that you can sort it all out.

Lanefan


----------



## rounser (Apr 7, 2009)

> That's it, keep attacking my arguments yet never solidifying, clarifying or explaining yur own stance in a clear and concise way so that real debate can take place.



Ha, you're one to talk when it comes to that.  I've posed questions but you've just ignored them.  But hypocrisy is overcriticised.  I'll answer my questions before commenting on your answers if you agree to answer them also, before commenting on mine.  Then maybe we can have a constructive discussion, rather than you talking apples and I oranges, by the term "worldbuilding."  Deal?

I'll even hook up a proper keyboard, rather than this thumb one which has been making my posts brief (or "never solidifying" as you put it).


----------



## Rel (Apr 7, 2009)

rounser said:


> Ha, you're one to talk when it comes to that.  I've posed questions but you've just ignored them.  But hypocrisy is overcriticised.  I'll answer my questions before commenting on your answers if you agree to answer them also, before commenting on mine.  Then maybe we can have a constructive discussion, rather than you talking apples and I oranges, by the term "worldbuilding."  Deal?




No deal!  Instead you'll be banned from this thread and also from the boards for three days.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 7, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> Yes, yes, yes!
> 
> If a DM goes into a campaign thinking it'll last 6 months, it'll very likely end in about 6 months; the DM's projected that expectation on to the players, and between their expectations and hers the campaign's got a short life expectancy.




Well, considering the WOTC market research showed the average campaign lasts about 12 months, presuming that yours will buck the trend, particularly out of the gate is perhaps not the best way to go.  Again, sure, if you know that your group and game will be ongoing that long, fine, but, I think for most people, they are lucky to get a campaign that lasts for more than 6 months.



> But if a DM goes into a campaign thinking "I'm prepared to run this as long as there's people willing to play it", does enough pre-design to support enough stories to keep things interesting, and sets that sort of open-ended expectation going in, then assuming the DM's any good (or the players are really tolerant!) it could and should last for many years.  It should be noted that I'm referring to the campaign here; as time goes on, player turnover is pretty much a given.




So, you advocate the DM keeping himself locked into one setting, regardless of the players?  That it is a better idea to build the campaign divorced from the players?  

This is certainly how the standard advice goes.  "If you build it they will come" sort of approach that is advocated in most places.

Hey, I realize this approach I'm advocating isn't for everyone.  I know that.  I accept that.  You're experiences are completely alien to me to be honest.  The idea of playing, let alone DMing in the same world for that long does not interest me in the least.  It works for you, but, it is certainly not the only way to game.


> I've both done it as a player, and had it done to me as DM.  To me, it's just another part of the game....
> 
> Lan-"where the map is blank, I'll go"-efan




Again, I'll stand by the comment that this is a statistical anomaly and does not figure into many campaigns.  Yes, I'm sure you have done it and I'm sure that ten other people might have too.  But, I'm also 100% convinced that the vast, overwhelming majority of players don't do this.  I notice while you mention that you have done it, you don't mention it being done any other time during your campaigns.  

So, you've run multi-year campaigns, spanning hundreds of hours of gametime.  How many times can you recall any of your players abandoning whatever they are doing at the time in favor of doing something that you are 100% not expecting?



Lanefan said:


> What about creating background where you've no idea whether it'll ever encounter the story or not - it is created for one of several possible stories that may crop up depending on in-game character decisions?




Before I answer this, I would ask for one clarification:  How likely is it that this background will come up?  If the background might come up if there is a blue moon on the third Thursday of March, then, I would say not to bother.  If it is likely to come up, then I would point back to my definition of world building vs setting building.  If it's likely going to come up, then it's setting building.  

Is that vague?  Sure.  And each DM will have to find a point where they are comfortable with possibilities.  But, since there is the definite intention that this material will come up, then I would probably approve.  My beef is not, and never has been with that.

My beef is with creating background material that is almost certain to not see play.



> It's good that you don't see it, because that's awful advice!
> 
> Set up the general world and at least one adventure first, then invite players to play in it.  For my current campaign, my sum-up went something like "It's D+D. It'll use the same homebrew rule-set we've been using all along, with a few tweaks.  The setting to start with will be classical-Greek based, but think Xena more than Homer.  Most other historical cultures exist somewhere in the world.  Gnomes and Hobbits will be much less common than you're used to.  You in?"
> 
> Note that I say *nothing* about plot!  They can figure that out - or not - as they go along; as well as how the cultures inter-relate, where they are, and so forth.




And that works for you.  Great.  This is not the style of campaign I'm talking about.  I'm talking about a campaign that actually has themes, an overarching storyline, feel, mood, that sort of thing and that these things are developed WITH the players, not independent of them.  

Your campaign sounds like a fairly standard campaign that follows the advice that has been trotted out for years.  That's fine.  It works.  I'm simply offering an alternative.



> And it'd be even more pointless following your advice (above) with new players, who don't even know what a "campaign" is.  That said, if all your players are new to the game you probably *don't* need to design very much at all going in; you can pretty much wing it all and they'll not know the difference at least for long enough that you can sort it all out.
> 
> Lanefan




Assuming that the new players aren't 8 years old, I'm pretty sure that most of them have a general idea of what a campaign is.  The days when RPG concepts were foreign to the general public have disappeared long ago.  Let's face it, it's a pretty rare person who comes to RPG's without any knowledge of CRPG's or any prior experience of what I'm talking about.  

Heck a new player would actually, IMO, be better served doing this.  It would get new players actively engaged in the campaign - the campaign centers around them, instead of teaching new players that they should passively wait while the DM wheels up the plot wagon and begins spoon feeding them the campaign.

Instead of the players being passive observers, they are actively engaged from the initial point of campaign creation.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 7, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> How hard is it really to accept the received definition of a gazelle (complete perhaps with the "lustrous eyes" I found in one dictionary as something there to be seen if one so looks) -- and also to prefer the awesomeness of the gamboling TOFUDABEAST?




Oh come on.  You're honestly going to say that I have no point here? That the definition of world building is such a concrete concept that there is no doubt?

I'd point to wikipedia for a moment.  It does actually 100% agree with my definition - the creation of a complete world is the goal of world building by definition.

I would also point the fact, AGAIN, that you can have a compete story without any or at least very little world building.

Honestly, I'd think on of the biggest mental hurdles here is that everyone likens campaign creation to novel writing.  If you spread out into other forms, suddenly world building becomes much less prevalent.  Short stories, for example, feature little world building for the simple fact that you don't have enough space to do it (although world building can certainly accrete through episodic short stories).  Stage theater also features little in the way of world building.

Novels feature world building because there is space to do so.  No one minds if you spend five pages detailing the day to day life of farmboys if your novel is 500 pages long.  Try doing the same thing in a 20 page short story and see how far you get.  My point is that perhaps instead of locking ourselves into the novel form, looking out to other forms might (note the conditional there) work as well.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 8, 2009)

Hussar, it is _your_ preferred mode that might be likened to writing a novel; those of us who prefer "campaigns" in the traditional gaming sense see a "plot-line" as anathema.

Had you indeed been "simply offering an alternative", then much of this thread should not have arisen. What you have actually done is attack as inferior (or even beyond your belief) what does not suit you -- which happens to be the game of D&D as it was formerly known (and in some circles is still played).

Your "alternative" has been offered plentifully by TSR and WotC over the past 20 years. Whatever lies beyond the set path of the module does not matter. Those wanting more should buy a product (e.g., the *FORGOTTEN REALMS*TM setting) rather than creating. If you must get creative, then devote your attention to plot, theme, character development, yadda yadda ... all a really, really old line that has padded the page count of more 2E, 3E and 4E books than I care to contemplate.


----------



## LostSoul (Apr 8, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> If a DM goes into a campaign thinking it'll last 6 months, it'll very likely end in about 6 months; the DM's projected that expectation on to the players, and between their expectations and hers the campaign's got a short life expectancy.




Not that there's anything wrong with that.  A short campaign can be very rewarding.

Especially - in my view - if you focus on the goals of the PCs and resolving them in whatever way the players choose.  This does not mean a pre-plotted scenario.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 8, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> Not that there's anything wrong with that.  A short campaign can be very rewarding.



Quite true.  That said, were I in a campaign that ended after 6 months I'd still be waiting for it to really get going. (of course, by our standards 6 months is time enough for one long adventure or 2-3 shorter ones; we're not exactly the one-adventure-per-session crowd here...) 


> Especially - in my view - if you focus on the goals of the PCs and resolving them in whatever way the players choose.  This does not mean a pre-plotted scenario.



Er...I don't see how this connects to campaign length or lack thereof; other than that the scale of the PCs' goals will in this instance somewhat determine the campaign length.

If their overall goal is to simply chase the Dragon out of the Lonely Mountain, then a 6-month campaign starting at mid-level should do.

If their overall goal is to start as commoners and eventually overthrow Ares, you're in for the long haul.

If, however, their overall goal is to get rich and get laid, you're done after about one session; two max.  And whatever setting/world/adventure design you've done can be recycled into the next game, 'cause it didn't even get scratched by this lot. 

@Hussar:

First off, don't use WotC's "market research" to attempt to prove any point to me; as I consider it both flawed and skewed away from gaming reality toward results more favourable to a profit-making enterprise.

Maybe I'm lucky, but the people I game with tend to run and play in campaigns averaging 7-10 years long, not counting one-offs.  Sure, there's some that for whatever reasons (usually time constraints; occasionally DM incompetence whether admitted or not) don't really get off the ground; but even those were designed (mostly) with the long term in mind.

We're also lucky in that, unlike those who have to scrape for players, we have a pretty solid player base.

One of our crew last year started running a 3.5e Eberron game pretty much stock (I don't think he's slowed down level advancement); I'll be interested to see how long that lasts, as I rather suspect the levels will get out of hand long before the DM runs out of ideas for the game.  Of course, the 2 TPKs in that game within the first two months didn't exactly speed things up much. 

And as for unplanned abandonment and sharp left turns; without going into lots of war stories, I can think of:
 - party having completed adventure A, or so we thought, and well on its way to adventure B (left turn #1) suddenly turns around and goes back to scene adventure A for no other reason than party infighting - this *saved* the DM's bacon, as we had missed the main hook for adventures B, C, D and E.  The only instance I can think of where a left turn in effect cancelled out another left turn! (the second left turn was my doing, in complete ignorance that it'd actually turn out to be useful.  The first left turn was a party decision-by-inertia)
 - party sailing into literally uncharted waters, until the Hand of God comes down from the sky to block the way (I was not in this adventure)
 - a character leaves the party and sets off on a solo world tour, with no other rationale except to make the DM map his world (I was in the party left behind)
 - DM spends ages setting up a plotline, but the whole thing hinges on two characters meeting with a Hobgoblin NPC who (we learn years later) is a turncoat.  One of the two characters leaves the other, meets and attacks the Hobgoblin (it's a bloody Hobgoblin, after all!), gets beaten, and flees; the other character leaves thinking all is well and not caring too much if it isn't.  Scads of plot prep go out the window. (full disclosure: I - as Lanefan the character - was the guy who attacked the Hob.)
 - party agree to take out G1 but once in the field suddenly decide to turn their backs on it and look for adventure anywhere else they can; they felt their employers weren't paying them enough (I was DMing this; madly flapping my wings for the next few sessions, and thank Goddess I'd at least mapped that part of the world and had a few vague ideas what might live in the places they went to)
 - party in mid-adventure and on a clock, find a gate to another world and decide on the spur of the moment to hop through and see where it takes them (I was DM; I should have seen it coming, but flap flap flap...I have since learned there are some players who cannot resist the reddest of herrings...)
 - tattered remains of a party in an off-plane adventure can't get back to the gate they arrived through, so decide to just get back to the Prime Material any way they can. They find a gate, but to the wrong world; and go through anyway. (I was DM, and that branch of the campaign ended at that point; the players already had other PCs elsewhere in the same game to pick up with)


That's all I can remember off the top.  Complete left turns don't happen often, but often enough that one needs to be at least vaguely prepared with enough information about what's there that if they do decide to go where the map is blank, it ain't quite as blank as it looks. 

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar (Apr 8, 2009)

Ok, I'm going to try to explain my points in as objective terms as I can.  I know this thread started off on very much the wrong foot.  It hasn't helped that people have continually ignored the fact that I am NOT saying that world building=bad.  I am saying that I think this approach

So, excuse me while I write a bit of a wall of text and explain my point in some detail.  I want to go into why I've differed from the usually accepted definition of world building and the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.

*Background*

Some time ago I got tied into a rather lengthy thread about world building and whether it was a good or bad thing.  That thread's been linked earlier in this thread if you really want to read it.  One of the points that I tried to get across is that world building and setting construction are not synonymous.

The reason for this is setting is required in all texts, but world building is not.  Setting at its most basic, is defined as where the plot occurs.  Setting, by definition is absolutely intertwined with plot.  Whether the setting is very sparse or detailed doesn't really matter - so long as the action of the story occurs there, it's setting.  World building, on the other hand, is not required by a text.  Waiting for Godot has a featureless plain and a bench for the entire setting.  I don't think anyone would call that world building.

So, in my mind, there is a distinction between setting and world building.  World building is defined as an attempt, in as much detail as possible, to create a complete fictional world.  It is not tied to plot.  It is an activity unto itself.

Now, bring that back to RPG's and suddenly all the world building advice you get in most RPG books takes on a different cast.  If world building is an activity unto itself, is it particularly necessary to create a good campaign?  In my view, no it is not.  

Not that it can't be.  Please, please don't think that I'm claiming that you can't do it that way.  Obviously that's not true.  One only has to look at Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or any other published setting and numerous fan based ones as well to know that you most certainly can.

But, I do think there is another approach.

So, there, enough of that.  Let's get to the meat of things.  The pros and cons of this approach.

1.  One strength is that by starting the campaign in cooperation with the players is that the players are already egaged by the campaign.  They have a stake in the campaign before it even starts since they have helped create it.  Instead of being passive consumers of the campaign, picking from the menu created by the DM, they are active participants before they've even picked up the dice to create a character.

The disadvantage of this is the DM has to cede some authorial control over the campaign.  If the players are going to have a stake in the campaign, then the DM can no longer simply do whatever he thinks is right.  And, this does constrain the choices the DM has as well.  If the group decides that they want to explore themes X and Y, the DM will have difficulty bringing in Z without consulting the players at all.

2.  Less work load for the DM.  This is pretty obvious.  If you aren't going to spend time detailing the setting beyond elements that fit with the campaign that you and your players have discussed before hand, then you are not going to do as much work as the DM who has to create an entire country or more.

The downside of this, again, is a limit on the freedom of the players.  That's true.  Now, since the players have already bought into this campaign, that shouldn't be a huge issue - if we've decided as a group that the campaign is going to follow the adventures of a mercenary group during a war between elves and dwarves, player's shouldn't be complaining that they can't start dragon hunting.  But, it is a limitation of scope at the outset. 

Honestly, IMO, I think that limitation is usually done by DM's anyway.  Most DM's are going to have some rough idea of what the campaign is going to be about before play starts, so, I'm not sure how much more constraining this is.

3.  Better ties between players, characters and the campaign.  Since everyone is already on board before you even start the campaign, you won't have the "random band of misfits meet in a bar" syndrome that plagues many campaigns.  The players are already on board, so they should be making characters that not only fit with each other, but with the campaign itself.  

You won't have players accidentally sidelining themselves because of miscommunications between the DM and the players over what the campaign is about.  The players, hopefully since they had a hand in getting the campaign off the ground, have a pretty good idea of what the campaign is about already and should make characters that fit with that.

Again, the downside here is the DM has to trust his players and relax his grip on the campaign.  Since the players had a hand in campaign creation, it is quite possible that they might pick elements that the DM may not 100% like but, is likely going to have to accept.  Not that this will happen automatically, but, it certainly could.  

Some sort of mechanism would need to be in place beforehand to resolve conflicts between aesthetic choices.  Simple voting in the group might work.

4.  This one is both a plus and a minus at the same time.  The campaign is going to be tighter.  It just is.  The players and the DM are all on the same page at the outset (or should be) which means that the campaign is going to be much more focused than a standard campaign.  This is good in that I think that it will result in deeper role play - less time spent screwing around and more time spent exploring the pre-defined themes.  On the downside, it will likely result in shorter campaigns since, once your finished exploring this theme, you're done.    To be honest, I think this style of campaign design lends itself more to narrative (gack I hate Forgisms) style play where exploring themes and concepts is more important than simulating or systems.

So, there you have it.  The giant wall of text.  Perhaps I should have written this several pages ago, but it took me this long to work it out in my own head.  Whatcha think?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 8, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Hussar, it is _your_ preferred mode that might be likened to writing a novel; those of us who prefer "campaigns" in the traditional gaming sense see a "plot-line" as anathema.




If your campaigns feature absolutely no plot, do you only game with random encounter tables and terrain generators?  Do you NPC's simply not speak, have no personality or goals of their own?  Is there no storyline beyond killing the next orc?

Cos, if there is, then you have a plot and your entire line of thinking here makes no sense.



> Had you indeed been "simply offering an alternative", then much of this thread should not have arisen. What you have actually done is attack as inferior (or even beyond your belief) what does not suit you -- which happens to be the game of D&D as it was formerly known (and in some circles is still played).




I came on too strong at the start of this thread and I backed away from that.  Fair cop.  I admit to that.  However, are you honestly going to tell me that completely abandoning storylines is a regular occurrence in your game?

If it is, I would suggest that the story lines in your game need some serious work.



> Your "alternative" has been offered plentifully by TSR and WotC over the past 20 years. Whatever lies beyond the set path of the module does not matter. Those wanting more should buy a product (e.g., the *FORGOTTEN REALMS*TM setting) rather than creating. If you must get creative, then devote your attention to plot, theme, character development, yadda yadda ... all a really, really old line that has padded the page count of more 2E, 3E and 4E books than I care to contemplate.




No, they really haven't.  Right in the front of the 3e DMG section on building campaigns, they talk about having to world build.  This is most definitely not an Edition Warz thing and I'll thank you not to turn it into such.  

Or, put it another way, are you honestly going to tell me that the 1e DMG does NOT focus a great deal of advice on world building?  That Greyhawk didn't develop pretty much exactly the way that standard world building styles work?  That you can't look at CanonFire! and say, wow, those guys really focus on elements other than setting?  

This has been the standard for how campaigns are created since day 1.  Start with your world, then start putting stuff in.  I'm saying that's backward.  Start with the stuff and then make the world that fits with that stuff.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> It hasn't helped that people have continually ignored the fact that I am NOT saying that world building=bad.




That is because, quite frequently, your actual statements contradict your denial that this is what you are saying.



> Some time ago I got tied into a rather lengthy thread about world building and whether it was a good or bad thing.




I remember that thread well.  It started off by describing world building in extremely negative terms, and ended up with a disclaimer that you were not trying to say that world building was bad, followed by the distinction (made by others) that apparently you were trying to say that bad world building was bad, and that the term "world building" should only apply if the activity is bad.



> That thread's been linked earlier in this thread if you really want to read it.




I would recommend reading it, if only for perspective on the rationality of the arguments presented therein.



> One of the points that I tried to get across is that world building and setting construction are not synonymous.




It is acceptable to say that "setting construction" is a subset of world building, if one can accurately define some aspect of the world that is not setting, and some aspect of construction that is not building.

AFAICT, no one has ever performed world building in relation to a role-playing game with the express intent that the material _*not*_ be used.  I therefore posit that what you term "world building" (as opposed to "setting construction") is, in fact, an empty set.



> Setting at its most basic, is defined as where the plot occurs.




Not so.  Setting, at its most basic, is defined as location.  In its interelationship with plot, setting includes not only where the action occurs, but also the context in which the action occurs.



> Setting, by definition is absolutely intertwined with plot.




Again, not so.  One can quite easily have a setting ("railroad station", say) without any plot at all.  Moreover, the action need not have a predetermined plot.

The term "plot" has more than one definiton, which you seem unable to avoid conflating.  In the context of this discussion, the relevant definitions are


plan secretly, usually something illegal; "They plotted the overthrow of the government" 

the story that is told in a novel or play or movie etc.; "the characters were well drawn but the plot was banal" 

devise the sequence of events in (a literary work or a play, movie, or ballet); "the writer is plotting a new novel"

When one refers to an "NPC plot", they are referring to the first item on the list.  The second items are intertwined; the third is the verb which leads to the second.  Many, many people believe that a role-playing game does not need -- indeed, is better without -- a pre-devised storyline.

The difference is twofold.

(1)  Writers plot out stories because the characters are unable to take independent action.  The plot is _*what will happen*_.  The more tightly the GM writes out a story, therefore, the more severely constrained the actions of the player characters within the game world will be.

(2)  Many players believe that the story is what occurs _*as the result of*_ game events.  Until those events have unfolded, the story itself is unknown.  It is the interaction of player choices and the world (including NPCs) devised as the setting that create the "plot".  The game, simply put, is not pre-plotted.



> World building, on the other hand, is not required by a text.  Waiting for Godot has a featureless plain and a bench for the entire setting.  I don't think anyone would call that world building.




You would be wrong.

There is a _*reason*_ that Waiting for Godot uses such a stark setting.  Devising that setting is devising the context of the play, and adds strongly to the thematic elements.  

Choosing what not to include is as important as -- in many cases, more important than -- choosing what to include when world building.



> So, in my mind, there is a distinction between setting and world building.  World building is defined as an attempt, in as much detail as possible, to create a complete fictional world.  It is not tied to plot.  It is an activity unto itself.




Again, you merely demonstrate that you do not understand the terms you are using, either in relation to literature or gaming.  And, again, if you look at your next paragraph, below,

Now, bring that back to RPG's and suddenly all the world building advice you get in most RPG books takes on a different cast.  If world building is an activity unto itself, is it particularly necessary to create a good campaign?  In my view, no it is not.​
one can easily see that you are re-defining terms so as to create an empty set.  There is no "world building advice you get in most RPG books" that suggests the creation of material with the goal that it not be used.  As you define world building, your query

If world building is an activity unto itself, is it particularly necessary to create a good campaign?​
can be seen as essentially meaningless.

IOW, you are asking "Is the creation of materials that you do not intend to use particularly necessary to create a good campaign?"  Not only is this not particularly necessary in your view, it is not particularly helpful on the basis of the definitions used.

You then to on to say 

Not that it can't be.  Please, please don't think that I'm claiming that you can't do it that way.  Obviously that's not true.  One only has to look at Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or any other published setting and numerous fan based ones as well to know that you most certainly can.

But, I do think there is another approach.​
but the approach of "Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or any other published setting and numerous fan based ones as well" are _*all*_ AFAICT based upon the idea that the material will be used.  IOW, none of these products fall within the empty set you have created, and therefore you cannot rationally contrast "another approach" with them as though they were part of that empty set.

Also, while you say

So, there, enough of that.  Let's get to the meat of things.  The pros and cons of this approach.​
you haven't actually bothered to define the approach you are looking at.  From what I can glean from your Pros and Cons, you are advocating the world building approach described in great detail in the 2e book, _*Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide*_.  You can find it here:  [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Campaign-Sourcebook-Catacomb-Supplement-Advanced/dp/088038817X]Amazon.com: Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide/Dungeon Master's Guide/Rules Supplement/ (Advanced Dungeons and Dragons): Paul Jaquays, William W. Conners: Books[/ame] .

One notes that this is far from the antithesis of published advice that you seem to think it is.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 8, 2009)

double post


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 8, 2009)

> If your campaigns feature absolutely no plot, do you only game with random encounter tables and terrain generators? Do you NPC's simply not speak, have no personality or goals of their own? Is there no storyline beyond killing the next orc?




It does not appear to me that the real world has a storyline. Seasons come and go, animals are predators or prey, people do all the myriad things that people do ... but for their own reasons, not as "supporting cast" following a script about me. We tell stories about events that have occurred, but the shape of things to come is uncertain.

Moldvay Basic is the first D&D rules set in which I recall attention being given to a literary model. The advice to the DM was "A. Choose a scenario" and then "B. Decide on a setting." The scenario was just thematic (Destroying an Ancient Evil, Visiting a Lost Shrine, Escaping from Enemies, etc.) -- a "hook" rather than a dramatic structure -- but still a step away from emphasis on creating an environment and letting _the players_ decide on their motivations in dealing with it.

Note that many such "hooks" would be provided for in a traditional campaign design, but they would be _possibilities_ rather than set scenarios.

The shift to "planning a story" really got underway (as far as D&D went) in 2nd ed. AD&D. The "linear dungeon" (like "kosher pork" to traditionalists) is something of which I saw a lot in the 3E period, and have seen continued apparently as the default model in 4E. "Adventure path" (perhaps AKA "railroad"?) seems to have become the prevalent campaign concept, building on the "playing modules" approach that became widespread in the 2E era.

"What's necessary" depends upon what one is trying to accomplish.

As a prerequisite for "designing for the story" is that "the story" already exists, there is a limit on what one _can_ design -- a scope in inverse proportion to the freedom players are allowed.

If players have the freedom to explore the world as in a traditional D&D campaign, then there must be world to explore. Starting small in terms of what is given much detail is the standard advice, but not for fear of wasted effort. To have some details worked out in an ever wider radius as the campaign progresses is to provide continually more opportunities for "stories" to emerge in play. In the long run, almost anything is likely to come into play -- but to get _started_ playing need not entail very much preparation.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 9, 2009)

There's a fine-line definition here that, if looked at, might - just might - make this a bit easier for all to grok.

From what I'm reading, there's a dichotomy between some who suggest only that which *will* be interacted with by the PCs should be pre-planned (the "setting-constructionists") and others who suggest that much more should be pre-planned regardless of what the PCs ever do.

Well, the difference lies in what the PCs might *potentially* do.  

If you're going in to a campaign that you've got tightly story-lined enough that you *know* the party's only ever going to visit Realm A, City-State B, Town C, and a bunch of adventures in between, then all you need to design is the realm, the city-state, the town, and the adventures; as those exhaust the PCs' interaction potential.

But if you're starting a campaign where after the first two adventures you have no bloody idea where the PCs are going to go, you need to pre-design a lot more to handle the *potential* of the PCs interacting with it; not down to exacting detail or even FR/Greyhawk-level detail, but enough that you vaguely know what's where and who's where and you have a rough map of how it all fits together.  A few shreds of history never hurt either.  Yes, there's a 99.9% chance you'll design some stuff that is never used, but big deal; you have no way of knowing this until the campaign is over, by which time it's too late anyway so who cares?

Lanefan


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 9, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> But if you're starting a campaign where after the first two adventures you have no bloody idea where the PCs are going to go, you need to pre-design a lot more to handle the *potential* of the PCs interacting with it; not down to exacting detail or even FR/Greyhawk-level detail, but enough that you vaguely know what's where and who's where and you have a rough map of how it all fits together.  A few shreds of history never hurt either.  Yes, there's a 99.9% chance you'll design some stuff that is never used, but big deal; you have no way of knowing this until the campaign is over, by which time it's too late anyway so who cares?



I dunno if one needs to go down to even that level of detail though. Now, this depends on your view of the world, consistency, etc, etc. But if takes the view of, "let the PCs dictate the world" then one need not be as concrete with pre-planning of a world. 

I am sure you probably have seen me mention the drag-and-drop style. Well by using that one can quickly build wherever the PCs are going by taking these components and addressing them to what the PCs are planning on doing/planning to go too. Of course to not be predictable one would spice it up, add mystery, etc. But this be other components dragged into the core drag-and-drop element. Thus one need not know what the setting is like at all till the player's actions dictate the shape of the world.

The benefit I find of this model, is that allows you to not be curtailed by what has been laid down. If the actions of the PCs and the plot they are unravelling (since discussing my own view here I am stating there is a plotline) in a certain manner you can lay down the groundwork without bashing into any pre-determined setting elements since there is none.

So while yes, some pre-design is a good thing I don't think it need be anything concrete or mapped out. Something as simple as a mind-map and resource of locations, NPCs, etc. can suffice and be potentially more beneficial to the unfolding events. I think a lot of this goes down to simply the style of campaign and ones view of the world, ie; does the events (story or simply actions of PCs) dictate the shape of the world, or has the shape of the world been already predetermined and the PCs are reacting to it.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 9, 2009)

I think that I would echo Fallen Seraph here and also elaborate on what you said Lanefan. What you wrote in your post is getting exactly at what the subtle difference is. Fallen Seraph points out the you do need to plan so that you can stay at least one step ahead of the characters, and the nature of that planning can potentiate or hinder your ability to improvise.

I would again say that the big difference between worldbuilders and setting constructors is that for a worldbuilder, maps of physical areas are important. They help them to crystalize the relationships of the elements of the world around the PCs. This helps because you can't control what the PCs do, so if you know where things are, you can respond easily. Maps can be the bane of a setting constructor. Having a crystalized set of geographical relationships hinders a DMs ability to drop elements into his game wherever he wants them, and hinders his ability to respond in a plot apropriate manner.

For a setting constructionist, the maps that are created are mostly non-geograpgic. They are relationship maps, and have the PCs at the center somewhere. They are temporal maps, with the actions loosely mapped out and many flexibilities build in in the form of contingiencies. They basically take the shape of a mostly linear timeline, with several plot defining chioces, consequences of these choices, many drag-and-drop elements that help to stear errant PCs back to where the action is, and tons of flexibility for inprov. 

A setting constructionist basically formulates an idea of what the bad guys are doing, and the events that are the result of that. This plot has to be something that will grab the PCs. Next, he creates many elements through which the PCs can interact with the bag guy's plans. These do not have to be mapped to a timeline. They are best if they are drag-and-drop. Each of these should give some information about the ongoing plot, preferably in ways that are hard to miss. Some of these elements should not require players to incite them, so that the DM has room to nudge a group of floundering PCs. They should also be as site independent as possible, so that the DM can just throw them at the PCs. All of these elements should address the themes, goals of play, and allow character growth and exposition, as well as paint an expanding picture of the plot, without requiring a certain outcome.

I think that the big difference is that the worldbuilder focuses on the geography and the world, while the setting constructionist focuses on the action that the PCs will find themselves in. Worldbuilding is a very multidimensional process, with at least two dimensions of a map, as well as a third in time, and many more in the economies, politics, etc... Setting construction is likely more linear. It focuses on events. This focus on time instead of space makes setting construction more efficient, because playing an RPG is an event, it is a linear structure. There will be tons of material that is not addressed in a worldbuilder's campaign. A good setting constructionist can minimize these inefficiencies.

I bet I am about to get flamed by people claiming that this sounds very much like a railroad. It is not for a couple of reasons, or at least not any more than a campaign with an intricately detailed world but no plot. 

Detailed worlds place restrictions on PC action just as much as detailed plots. Detailed worlds specify where things will interacted with, and what those things are. The PCs can choose where to go, and what to do, but they have to go to specific places to do things, and there is no guarantee that there is anything interesting to do there. Just a detailed area of the map. That is a limitation on PC action. Detailed plots specify what things happen to the PCs and why, but not necessarily where, and definitely do not demand a certain response by the PCs. The response of the PCs is completely open during play. I would contend that this is what heroism actually is. Responding to bad situations in a good way. If you want to play heros, it is much easier in a plot driven campaign.

To address your concern about needing to know where a campaign is headed  if you ignore worldbuilding, I would say partially you are right. You have to have an idea of what the point of the campaign is. You need to have decided on some specific goals, some themes to address, and have a good idea of the characters involved. Other than that, you can have a great plot driven campaign by staying just one step ahead of the PCs. This method of setting construction is analogous to the the inside out method of worldbuilding. Start small, build from there. I feel like this can be even easier in a setting oriented campaign because you have not been locked into much geographically. You have to stay on top of events and characters, and you will need a supply of drag-and-drop elements, but otherwise prep can be minimized.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Apr 9, 2009)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> > but the distinction between pre-prep and improv in terms of output is almost nonexistent if you're doing your pre-prep right.
> 
> 
> 
> The other big distinction is that with improv, you don't need to come up with anything extra.




That sounds like the exact same distinction.



> I advocate not detailing too much, so that you eliminate the rails. Everyone "railroads" to some degree if they prep but not improvise.




You're working from a false premise. Proper prep _eliminates_ the rails. A railroad is, in fact, defined by a lack of prep.



> None are likely to be unused, unless the PCs skip things or ingore the prep entirely. This is likely a breach of social contract.




This is another false premise. There are plenty of games in which the PCs are _expected_ to skip things they don't find interesting.

_






			(2) You need to design the city of Tharsis. (Where is it? What's it like? What can the PCs do there? Et cetera.)
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...


_


> Only minimally, and only with reference to what the PCs will need for this adventure. "Sinig city on the coast, not far from the derelict ship, white marble city in Greek arcitecture style, with a huge mountain behind it." The rest can be improvised.




In other words, you answer the questions: Where is it? What's it like? But you don't answer the question, "What can the PCs do there?" Even though you claim that all prep should be aimed at the PCs. Would you care to explain the obvious discrepancy in your position?



> Sure, the parts that might be a battle site should have a map. Otherwise a short description and improv are sufficient.
> 
> No. You need the villains' stats if you want to have a fight. Nothing else is needed. Improvise at the table if the PCs decide to fight the navy.




What you're failing to acknowledge is that the GM isn't making the decision of "where will the PCs fight on this ship". Nor is he making the decision "will the PCs fight the navy?". The PCs are making those decisions (or, at the very least, contributing heavily to them).

You, OTOH, have a vision of the story that you want to tell. You claim that you're "open to other possibilities", but you also advocate the type of limited, narrow-minded prep that you admit causes "everyone" to "railroad to some degree".

The only way you know that (a) the PCs will board there derelict and fight the villain, but (b) not attempt to fight or evade the Tharsis navy is if you either railroad them or have an amazing gift of prescience.

And that's why you're running into problems in this thread: You're refusing to acknowledge that not everyone runs their games the way that you do.

By your own description, you not only design elements of the world, you also pre-determine their purpose. You don't just design a "derelict", you design a "derelict that the PCs are supposed to explore". You don't just design a "bad guy on the ship", you design a "bad guy on the ship that the PCs are supposed to fight". You don't just design a "Tharsis navy", you design a "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to".

But I don't GM like that. I design a "derelict" and then I let the PCs do whatever they want with it. Explore it? Sink it? Tow it? Repair it? Fight on the deck? Fight below decks? Fight while swinging from the tattered rigging? Whatever happens, happens.

Saying, "You should only design the parts of the ship that might be part of the battle site." is a nonsensical instruction for my style of gaming. Battle site? I don't even know if there's going to _be_ a battle. I certainly don't know where on the ship that battle is going to take place. 

You said that you felt "insulted" because I suggested that you just flat-out don't understand how other people play the game. But then you posted a message confirming that you don't, in fact, understand how other people play the game.



Hussar said:


> World Building - the act of creating background that is independent of plot. The act of creating background FOR IT'S OWN PURPOSE.
> 
> Setting Building - the act of creating background that is dependent on plot. The act of creating background TO SERVE THE GAME/STORY.




But if you GM like I do, then the distinction is non-existent. Elements of the game world are like toys in a child's playroom. Your game features structured play time -- you have selected very specific toys that the children can play with and you even have some guidelines on how they're expected to play with them. There's nothing wrong with that. And, in that context, it's fair to say, "You shouldn't buy toys that the kids aren't going to play with."

But my game, OTOH, just features a playroom full of toys and the kids are allowed to play with whatever they want and however they want. In that context saying, "You shouldn't buy toys that the kids aren't going to play with." is meaningless. I buy a toy, I put it in the playroom, and they either play with it or they don't.

Within the confines of the analogy it still makes sense to prioritize my toy buying budget based on the types of toys I know the kids like to play with. And maybe there's some sort of rigorous methodology for organizing the toys, so I shouldn't buy toys that would be placed on high shelves the kids probably can't reach (i.e., designing a village on the far side of the game world that the PCs are unlikely to go to). 

But the distinction between "toys they can play with" and "toys they can't play with"? Doesn't exist. They can play with all the toys and they can play with them however they like.

And the reason why D&D rulebooks and magazine articles are predominated by articles supporting my style of play and not your style of play is because that's been the default style of D&D play since 1974.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 9, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> You're working from a false premise. Proper prep _eliminates_ the rails. A railroad is, in fact, defined by a lack of prep.



Prepping makes the rails. Whether you insist on placing an element in play or you do not place an element in play, by deciding what is "playable" you have created rails to some degree. It was the prep that did that. No matter what or how you prepared. You made the rails.





Beginning of the End said:


> This is another false premise. There are plenty of games in which the PCs are _expected_ to skip things they don't find interesting.



This is actually part of the point in how I advocate preparing for a game. Make sure that the elements in your game will be interesting to the players. This is accomlished with goal setting, theme setting, and character creation. The DM then addresses these things. If you do this, you virtually eliminate the possibility that you introduce things that the players are not interested in.



Beginning of the End said:


> In other words, you answer the questions: Where is it? What's it like? But you don't answer the question, "What can the PCs do there?" Even though you claim that all prep should be aimed at the PCs. Would you care to explain the obvious discrepancy in your position?



The most important thing to ask yourself when introducing something into a campaign is "Why is it there?" When you do this, the where and what become important. Otherwise, it is just scenery. Don't stress too much about it.



Beginning of the End said:


> What you're failing to acknowledge is that the GM isn't making the decision of "where will the PCs fight on this ship". Nor is he making the decision "will the PCs fight the navy?". The PCs are making those decisions (or, at the very least, contributing heavily to them).



This is taken care of if yuo have a decent idea of why you are introducing the element, and how you will introduce it, and who you are introducing it to. Goals, themes, and characters. If you don't know what yours are, you will have a hard time making predictions about what will happen.



Beginning of the End said:


> You, OTOH, have a vision of the story that you want to tell. You claim that you're "open to other possibilities", but you also advocate the type of limited, narrow-minded prep that you admit causes "everyone" to "railroad to some degree".



Everyone reailroads. It is the process of defining your world/story that accomplishes this. The only way to avoid it is to ad hoc, improvise, and never say no. If you prep, you have defined the world, and you are eliminating possibilities. That is essentially a railroad.

My vision of the story comes from what the players have told me that they want to accomplish, and the characters that they have given me to accomplish it. I just create a crisis for them to act on. The story emerges from play. I don't "determine" it. I give them the opportunity to tell the story that they have told me that they want to. Plot =/= story. Plot as far as Iam concerned is what the bad guys plan, and ways that I have prepared to clue them into this. The rest is up to them. I do throw a lot of things at them to get them going, but it is up to them to determing what they make of it. 



Beginning of the End said:


> The only way you know that (a) the PCs will board there derelict and fight the villain, but (b) not attempt to fight or evade the Tharsis navy is if you either railroad them or have an amazing gift of prescience.
> 
> And that's why you're running into problems in this thread: You're refusing to acknowledge that not everyone runs their games the way that you do.



It is not prescience if you set it up right. It is not railroading if you allow them to choose. It is easy to reskin another drag-and-drop encounter to use for the unforseen event of the Navy attack.



Beginning of the End said:


> By your own description, you not only design elements of the world, you also pre-determine their purpose. You don't just design a "derelict", you design a "derelict that the PCs are supposed to explore". You don't just design a "bad guy on the ship", you design a "bad guy on the ship that the PCs are supposed to fight". You don't just design a "Tharsis navy", you design a "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to".



The purpose that I design is in what they can get out of the element. They can interact in any way they want. I set the stage and they take it. The purpose that I have in mind is to allow them to choose how they interact with it, and to clue them into what is going on. An element that I introduce will give the players a choice and will give them information as to what the bag guys are doing. They still make meaningful choices. I never have results set in stone. I introduce opportunities, and then improvise. A "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to". Would never happen in my campaign. A "Tharsis navy that may open these doors for the PCs". The Pcs still have to opne the door.



Beginning of the End said:


> But I don't GM like that. I design a "derelict" and then I let the PCs do whatever they want with it. Explore it? Sink it? Tow it? Repair it? Fight on the deck? Fight below decks? Fight while swinging from the tattered rigging? Whatever happens, happens.



This is exactly what I do. I just always do it in context of the goals of play, the themes of play, the characters, and the evolving plot. There would be no derelict if one of those things didn't demand it. I don't demand that they do a certain thing with it. I just only add it if it is directly related to the story that the PCs are creating. And I make sure that any player initiated elements in the story are not the only thing that will allow the story to advance.



Beginning of the End said:


> Saying, "You should only design the parts of the ship that might be part of the battle site." is a nonsensical instruction for my style of gaming. Battle site? I don't even know if there's going to _be_ a battle. I certainly don't know where on the ship that battle is going to take place.



If the monster attacks there, it will be a battle site, if only for as long as it takes the PCs to retreat. If it is all underwater except for the foredeck, then only the foredeck needs to exist. It seems that you are just objecting to object. You do have PCs get attacked, don't you?



Beginning of the End said:


> You said that you felt "insulted" because I suggested that you just flat-out don't understand how other people play the game. But then you posted a message confirming that you don't, in fact, understand how other people play the game.



I fully understand your style of play. I played that way for years. You obviously do not understand mine. 



Beginning of the End said:


> But if you GM like I do, then the distinction is non-existent. Elements of the game world are like toys in a child's playroom. Your game features structured play time -- you have selected very specific toys that the children can play with and you even have some guidelines on how they're expected to play with them. There's nothing wrong with that. And, in that context, it's fair to say, "You shouldn't buy toys that the kids aren't going to play with."
> 
> But my game, OTOH, just features a playroom full of toys and the kids are allowed to play with whatever they want and however they want. In that context saying, "You shouldn't buy toys that the kids aren't going to play with." is meaningless. I buy a toy, I put it in the playroom, and they either play with it or they don't.
> 
> ...



OK, I'll extend your analogy. If you just ask what the players want to play, then maybe you don't need to buy all those toys. If a kid doesn't want to play with dolls, don't buy dolls. If you need new toys every day or so, only buy the toys that you know that they will play with for the next few days. If it is July, you can ask them about whether they like baseball, and if they say yes and want to play baseball, don't worry about skis.

If you are forming a baseball team, then making sure that all your toy purchases are aimed at playing baseball is a good thing. A baseball coach could spend plenty of time buying hula hoops, and that might even be OK, the most efficient purchases will be baeball equipment, with the idea that they have a use for what you are doing. 



Beginning of the End said:


> And the reason why D&D rulebooks and magazine articles are predominated by articles supporting my style of play and not your style of play is because that's been the default style of D&D play since 1974.



This is very true. I think that there is a chicken and egg problem though. Is it the default style of play because it was placed in the rulebook, or was it placed in the rulebook because it is the default style of play? Does it really matter if there is another style that would work at least as well if not better? Should we restrict the advocacy of play styles to what we have mostly always done, or start talking about other ways, just to make sure that people are aware of them?


----------



## Beginning of the End (Apr 9, 2009)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> Prepping makes the rails. Whether you insist on placing an element in play or you do not place an element in play, by deciding what is "playable" you have created rails to some degree. It was the prep that did that. No matter what or how you prepared. You made the rails.




This is simply not true. Railroading is defined by a lack of choice -- which means a lack of prep. Whether you're doing that as pre-prep or improv-prep is irrelevant.



> This is actually part of the point in how I advocate preparing for a game. Make sure that the elements in your game will be interesting to the players. This is accomlished with goal setting, theme setting, and character creation. The DM then addresses these things. If you do this, you virtually eliminate the possibility that you introduce things that the players are not interested in.




Unless, of course, the goal of the campaign is about meaningful choice. Meaningful choice, you'll note, means that there is inherently a road not taken.



> > What you're failing to acknowledge is that the GM isn't making the decision of "where will the PCs fight on this ship". Nor is he making the decision "will the PCs fight the navy?". The PCs are making those decisions (or, at the very least, contributing heavily to them).
> 
> 
> 
> This is taken care of if yuo have a decent idea of why you are introducing the element, and how you will introduce it, and who you are introducing it to.




The PCs making decisions is "taken are of" if the GM makes the decisions instead? Well, yes. That's exactly what I said. And it's why you keep getting accused of railroading, BTW.



> Everyone reailroads.




(1) If that's actually true, then why did you consider it "insulting" when I said you railroaded?

(2) If your definition of "railroad" is actually so broad that "everybody does it", then your definition not only fails to match up with the actual common usage of the term (which makes it useless) it also renders it meaningless (which also makes it useless).



> > You don't just design a "Tharsis navy", you design a "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to".
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose that I design is in what they can get out of the element. They can interact in any way they want. I set the stage and they take it.




You can't have it both ways. You can't say "you shouldn't design X because the PCs will never interact wth it" and then say "the PCs are free to interact with X any way they want".



> This is very true. I think that there is a chicken and egg problem though. Is it the default style of play because it was placed in the rulebook, or was it placed in the rulebook because it is the default style of play?




We know the answer to that one: Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax were both running campaigns before there was a rulebook. Those campaigns used that style of play. That style of play went into the rulebook they wrote.



> I fully understand your style of play. I played that way for years. You obviously do not understand mine.




I understand your style of play just fine. I just don't understand why you insist on claiming it as the One True Way. I also don't understand why your posts contradict themselves in a completely incoherent way.


----------



## underthumb (Apr 9, 2009)

If anyone thought my prior post was hyperbole, let's take some key quotes from different individuals:



> Prepping makes the rails. Whether you insist on placing an element in play or you do not place an element in play, by deciding what is "playable" you have created rails to some degree. It was the prep that did that. No matter what or how you prepared. You made the rails.




Preparation is basically railroading!



> You don't just design a "derelict", you design a "derelict that the PCs are supposed to explore". You don't just design a "bad guy on the ship", you design a "bad guy on the ship that the PCs are supposed to fight". You don't just design a "Tharsis navy", you design a "Tharsis navy that the PCs are supposed to surrender to".
> 
> But I don't GM like that. I design a "derelict" and then I let the PCs do whatever they want with it. Explore it? Sink it? Tow it? Repair it? Fight on the deck? Fight below decks? Fight while swinging from the tattered rigging? Whatever happens, happens.




Your campaign is hobbled by prior intention! Whereas I design things with no ostensible game purpose! This may seem impossible, but my perception of future player actions is always equipotential!

I submit that these quotes are _astounding_ and continue to dilute the concept of railroading into nothingness. As a GM, you always have the curse of knowledge: you cannot _not_ suspect what your players will do, and this will never fail to influence your design choices unless you're throwing darts at a wall of encounters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 9, 2009)

underthumb said:


> Preparation is basically railroading!




.....But if we change the meaning of words, we say do all kinds of crazy things!   

It shouldn't be difficult to realize that, if prep limits options by only allowing for what is prepped, not prepping limits options even further by only allowing what can be prepped on the fly.

If in any period X, you can come up with an average of Y options, if you spend X time, you can come up with an average of Y options.  It is almost tautological that additional prep time leads to increased options.

This is just another reformation of the arguments refuted upthread, where a premise is floated on the basis of an empty set that is supposedly its antithesis.  In this case, the empty set where prep work becomes railroading.


RC


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 9, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> If in any period X, you can come up with an average of Y options, if you spend X time, you can come up with an average of Y options.  It is almost tautological that additional prep time leads to increased options.



Except that improv at the table is collaborative, and so is much more efficient than time spent on prep before the game. On top of that, you only have to come up with the stuff that the characters do. Ignoring this is why you are having a problem understanding.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Apr 9, 2009)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> > It shouldn't be difficult to realize that, if prep limits options by only allowing for what is prepped, not prepping limits options even further by only allowing what can be prepped on the fly.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that improv at the table is collaborative, and so is much more efficient than time spent on prep before the game. On top of that, you only have to come up with the stuff that the characters do. Ignoring this is why you are having a problem understanding.




Raven Crowking had a very precise point which you ignored completely in order to post more of your non sequiturs. Would you care to try again?


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 9, 2009)

Precocious Apprentice, it is simply not going to work: we are not going to accept a redefinition of "railroad" jargon derived from playing D&D, such that it could even apply to the choice of playing D&D! ("But it's not Toon! Railroader!")


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 9, 2009)

Again, the kind and amount of preparation that's appropriate depends on what you want to do -- and where that intersects with what you _can_ do.

In terms of time, energy and number of players, a full-fledged campaign of the scope of Blackmoor, Greyhawk or Tékumel may be impractical for many of us.

On the other hand, the extremely limited sort that depends on the assumption of The Party being a constant may likewise be impractical.

Having to go through the "redesign with players" process often would I think pretty obviously be a drag. At the extreme, it would mean a session of such prep -- _plus_ however much more prep the GM must do -- for just one session of play.

Here's another "chicken and egg" for you: Did TSR and WotC simply reflect the growing preponderance of the fixed 4-6 player team with the same characters always on the same mission and tuning in at the same Bat-time on the same Bat-day each week ... or did players come to take that for granted because it's what the corporation promoted?

We can ask the same about the notion that D&D should be about following a DM-provided story line instead of exploring a DM-provided world.

In a broad range of circumstances between extremes, the replay value of "world building" elements is very telling. It cuts down need for further preparation eventually (and that's not after very long, in my experience) to the point that one can run engaging sessions "on the fly." 

If one has run weekly sessions for a couple of years, the world is likely to be so "lived in" that fleshing out part of it is as easy as picturing part of the real world.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 10, 2009)

The thing is, there are three arguments going on in this thread.

1) All prep is good vs not all prep is good.
2) Having a reason for placing an encounter/element in your campaign is good vs. having a reason in mind is railroading.
3) Planning inherently creates better games than improv vs. improv can get to the same place as planning.

They often get confused within this thread.

Railroading- Limiting meaningful choice or the players. Sometimes with the contentious additions of "with or without conscious DM action/intervention" and/or "with or without player objection." 

I am not trying to redefine railroad. It has been shown by many threads that have discussed railroading that there is no real consensual definition of railroading. The points I have made are that there are characteristics of railroading in every campaign. It is impossible not to. When the DM makes a choice, the players are denied the opportunity to make that choice. Defining the world is the DM imposing a shape to the campaign. This is fundamentally no different than defining the plot. It is just defining a different element of the campaign. It is just focusing on developing the story and not developing the world. Setting construction can avoid the railroad by allowing significant player choice within the plot. Not all possible choices are meaningful. By asking about what types of choices are significant for the players, the group, the campaign, and the characters, the story based game can address those choices that are meaningful without having to resort to the shotgun approach needed by worldbuilders. Both worldbuilding and setting construction rely on improv to some degree. Worldbuilding relies on improv for creating the action and plot. Setting construction relies on improv for the details of the world. The communication issue exists because you cannot see all of this. 

The players retain as much meaningful choice in a story oriented game as a world oriented game, if they are both done right. Since the story oriented design is directly addressing the play/story, and world is directly addressing the world, the story design should be more efficient at giving the players meaningful choices. It is my experience that it is. I have used both methods, even successfully. These two activities exist on a spectrum. No one exclusively worldbuilds. No one exclusively constructs setting. The more toward setting you are, the greater your likelihood of maximizing out-of-game prep efficiency, since you directly address the meaningful choices.

I agree with RC that prep is good. I disagree with the implication that worldbuilding is best way to be prepared, or that it addresses which things are best prepared and which things are best improvised. I would contend that the most efficient way of establishing a world in your campaign is to do it at the table. Prep time for a game is best spent addressing meaningful choice, not the specific details of any element. Worldbuilding is successful if enough time is spent preparing to account for enough world elements that the players find at least one meaningful, and then be flexible in play. Setting construction is successful if the communication is good enough to determine what subset of all possible choices would be meaningful, and address those. Then be flexible in play. 

If you need X elements that are meaningful to have a meaningful choice, and you need (X+n) choices in a campaign constructed with the worldbuilding method to ensure that there are X meaningful elements, while through communication, setting building, and improv you can produce just those X meaningful elements, then to use the verbiage above, it is almost tautological that it is more efficient to just ensure that you address the meaningful choices through setting construction and improv.

RC made two "precise" points. The first was that changing meanings of words can lead to changed logical outcomes. This is true. This is the point of this thread. This is not a bad thing. This is the creation of knowledge. Defining and redefining. That is how we progress intellectually. I didn't feel the need to address this point. I agree with the statement if not the conclusion implied. The second point was that  more time preparing means more choices. My response was that communication and collaboration increase your ability to create elements that are meaningful for your players. The other part of my response was that by addressing just what the players find meaningful, your total meaningful choices can be maintained the same. Who cares about the choices that the players never make? If you arrive at the same number of meaningful choices, but you spend much less time getting there, your game prep is more efficient. This is basically what the OP stated. This is also a good thing to teach, if the desire is to expand the player base.

To address the replay value thing Ariosto, there is no reason that you cannot recycle the elements of the world that evolve from a story driven game. An established world is an established world, no matter how you get there. If you don't mind the limitations on a campaign, then starting with a story driven game because it is easier, then allowing the world to evolve into a persistent world would be the most efficient way to create the world that you will use several years from now. No need to start with the whole world mapped. That is the inside out worldbuilding method that would evolve out of the setting construction method.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 10, 2009)

I think there is indeed a consensus as to the meaning of "railroad" among members of the culture that coined the term in the first place.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2009)

On the idea of real life has no plot.



			
				Aristo said:
			
		

> It does not appear to me that the real world has a storyline. Seasons come and go, animals are predators or prey, people do all the myriad things that people do ... but for their own reasons, not as "supporting cast" following a script about me. We tell stories about events that have occurred, but the shape of things to come is uncertain.




Do your NPC's have any goals?  If yes, you have a plot in your game.  End of story.

Unless your entire campaign is nothing but randomly generated, completely disconnected events, you have a plot.  It might be a skeletal one, "Defend the town against the invaders" or it might be more meaty, but, it's still a plot.  The second any actor in the campaign has any goals, whether PC or NPC, you have a plot.

Isn't it funny that the anti-badwrongfun police have jumped up and down on me repeatedly in this thread, but, here's Aristo saying that any story based play is bad and it passes without comment.  Nice to know that everything's on an even footing.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice (Apr 10, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I think there is indeed a consensus as to the meaning of "railroad" among members of the culture that coined the term in the first place.




There was a thread around here a few days back about whether you could raiload a willing player. It was forked from this thread. There was no consensus. There were claims about railroading that were all over the place. This is exactly the same every time it comes up. Some people want to say that everything but a sandbox is a railroad, others saying that even a game with a very inflexible plot with no chance of alternatives is not a railroad if the players choose not to excercise any choice, or if they don't mind. There is no consensus about the definition of a railroad.

The thing is, basically any definition falls apart when you look at what people call a railroad, and what they say is not a railroad. It is all subjective. Meaningful choice is almost always part of the definition. That is pretty close to a consensus. Even that is problematic, because we have to get to what a meaningful choice is. Is a choice between two things actually meaningful if neither is appealing at all? What character or degree of choice is necessary to make it meaningful? How different must the options be in order for a meaningful choice to exist? These are subjective things. Everyone can agree that railroading exists. They can often agree when things have the characteristics of a railroad. Insisting on a definition of railroad is basically railroading the discussion. 

Saying that a certain thing is railroading requires an explanation of how it lacks any meaningful choice. One could also show how something is more or less railroady than something else by comparing the difference in the degree and character of the choices that each offers, without requiring that either be a strict railroad. Neither worldbuilding nor setting construction inherently produces a railroad. Each has limitations on choice, and the limitations are basically of a similar degree, only covering different aspects of a campaign. Neither is a strict railroad, but neither is free of railroad characteristics. A significant amount of meaningful choice can be had in a campaign whether created as a sandbox or as a plot driven campaign. 

There has been a falacy that has been thrown around this thread. The falacy is that a plot equals a railroad. It no more does than an established world, independent of the PCs is a railroad. If a place for the PCs to explore is not a railroad, then an event for the PCs to experience is not a railroad. One focuses on verbs, the other focuses on nouns. 

I am challenging the falacy that the only way to avoid railroading is to provide a sandbox. Providing a baseball field does not determine the result of the game. This is not even a good analogy, because with a good plot, the game can exist anywhere. You don't need the sandbox, or the playground, or the park. It comes to get you wherever you are. What you do with it is the choice. 

If we decide what game to play before we start play, or we let game play evolve during play, we have still decided on what to play, the only difference is that the players decided in one and the players decided through character proxies in the other. Neither has more choice than the other.

Your railroad straw man will not work. A plot is as equally unrailroady as a sandbox.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Apr 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Do your NPC's have any goals?  If yes, you have a plot in your game.  End of story.




This has been said before, but apparently you didn't listen:

Plot = a plan that a person/character has
Plot = the sequence of events which make up a storyline

The two meanings of the term "plot" are not interchangeable. Trying to make them interchangeable is simply creating needless confusion for the sake of creating needless confusion.

So, given the clear context within this thread, let's focus on the second (and pertinent) definition of the term.

I would argue that the real world does have plots. Abraham Lincoln was elected President, he led through the Union through the Civil War, and then he was shot and killed in a theater by John Wilkes Booth. That's a plot.

Similarly, all the campaigns I have played in have plots: Character A did X, then they did Y, and then they did Z. That's a plot.

The difference, however, lies not in the story that can be told after the fact. It lies in the prep. If you're prepared a plot before you play the game, then that's very different than a game in which there is no plot before you play through the events. It is, in fact, possible to have a game in which there is no predetermined plot.



> Isn't it funny that the anti-badwrongfun police have jumped up and down on me repeatedly in this thread, but, here's Aristo saying that any story based play is bad and it passes without comment. Nice to know that everything's on an even footing.




Ariosto was actually quite clear that he was speaking of only his own personal preference.

"...those of us who prefer "campaigns" in the traditional gaming sense see a "plot-line" as anathema."
""What's necessary" depends upon what one is trying to accomplish."

These quotes clearly indicate an acknowledgment of other styles of play.

You seem to be having a really difficult time reading posts in this thread for comprehension. Particularly Ariosto's. Why is that, do you think?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> This has been said before, but apparently you didn't listen:
> 
> Plot = a plan that a person/character has
> Plot = the sequence of events which make up a storyline
> ...




Umm, what?  While yes, a plan that a person has is a plot, usually for some nefarious scheme, what does that meaning have to do with this thread?  Good grief, we're talking about campaigns.  Obviously the meaning of plot is number 2 in this context.

But, regardless of that, if you have PC's or NPC's with plans, you AUTOMATICALLY have a plot in your campaign (meaning number 2).  The only way you could not have plot in your campaign would be to have a string of unrelated encounters with no connection between them, randomly generated. 

Anything other than that is a plot.  I get taken to task for clearly outlining why I'm redefining world building, but you guys get to pick and choose the definitions regardless of how nonsensical it becomes?

Wow.



> So, given the clear context within this thread, let's focus on the second (and pertinent) definition of the term.




Please do.



> I would argue that the real world does have plots. Abraham Lincoln was elected President, he led through the Union through the Civil War, and then he was shot and killed in a theater by John Wilkes Booth. That's a plot.
> 
> Similarly, all the campaigns I have played in have plots: Character A did X, then they did Y, and then they did Z. That's a plot.
> 
> The difference, however, lies not in the story that can be told after the fact. It lies in the prep. If you're prepared a plot before you play the game, then that's very different than a game in which there is no plot before you play through the events. It is, in fact, possible to have a game in which there is no predetermined plot.




No.  It isn't.  It really isn't.  The second you have any connection between events, you have a plot.  If there is any causal relationships in your game, you have a plot.  You may not know the end of your plot (and I would certainly hope that you do not - therein lies railroading) but the plot is there nonetheless.  

Lincoln is elected president - how does this effect the Civil war?  is a plot.



> Ariosto was actually quite clear that he was speaking of only his own personal preference.
> 
> "...those of us who prefer "campaigns" in the traditional gaming sense see a "plot-line" as anathema."
> ""What's necessary" depends upon what one is trying to accomplish."
> ...




Possibly because I am not busy trying to play silly bugger semantic games in order to score Internet points?  Aristo has been pretty clear numerous times that he thinks that any game style other than his own is inferior.  I mean, come on:



			
				Aristo said:
			
		

> The shift to "planning a story" really got underway (as far as D&D went) in 2nd ed. AD&D. The "linear dungeon" (like "kosher pork" to traditionalists) is something of which I saw a lot in the 3E period, and have seen continued apparently as the default model in 4E. "Adventure path" (perhaps AKA "railroad"?) seems to have become the prevalent campaign concept, building on the "playing modules" approach that became widespread in the 2E era.




How is this NOT a badwrongfun post?  It's not even remotely historically accurate either considering how prevalent module play was in 1e.  Heck, the vast majority of Greyhawk was expounded upon in modules.  2e saw the widespread use of modules?  That's news to me.

But hey, don't let the fact that I have repeatedly stated that this is an alternative to standard campaign design deter you.  I have not, outside of the initial post that triggered this thread, stated that this is the absolutest best way to do things.  What I have stated is that I do think that it is better than the alternative.

You're free to disagree with that.  That's fine.  But to give Aristo a free pass on the badwrongfun end of things is just playing silly buggers.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 10, 2009)

People acquainted only with 4E might not understand what "hit dice" are, and people not acquainted with 4E might understand terms such as "leader" and "mob"  in a different (plain-English) way -- but that does not mean the game jargon lacks well-understood referents.

I have created and run "railroad" scenarios, some of which are among my most memorable sessions of play. Some games from their inception assumed and were specifically designed for that style of play ... but not D&D.

The claims of tightly limited environment creation being a more efficient means all presuppose a particular end.

In my experience, it is not in the long run a labor-saving approach. Material designed only for one scene in a story leaves me starting from scratch with the next. If I design a dynamic environment from which all sorts of stories can emerge, then the Hussars of the world will ride me down for "world-building".

Consider a proper dungeon. I typically start by mapping and keying perhaps three or four small levels, but two could suffice. The thing is, that little bit of work can provide plenty of adventure for multiple sessions. In the meantime, I can expand it both vertically and horizontally.

A town is much the same, although the expansion there is not outward but inward -- toward development of the NPCs and their relationships.

Moving on to the wilderness, an analogy with war-games comes to mind. By the "setting only" ideology, the only hexes (or at least the only non-blank ones) should be those into which I expect moves in a preplanned campaign. Information players could use to plan other strategies is allegedly "not meaningful". That is utterly to fail to grasp what a strategic game is about!

D&D as originally conceived is a game of strategy. Stories emerge in play rather than being forced. The old wisdom is one of planting seeds that grow naturally, rather than building the forest one board-foot at a time.

That capability ought to be an *asset* to someone who wants a stronger element of plot but also wants to retain the game aspect! (Lacking the latter desire, he is perhaps better advised to become a novelist rather than a DM.)

I tend to run relatively "plotted" superhero games, which is rather in keeping with the generally reactive nature of heroes in that genre (quite different from the instigating protagonists of sword-and-sorcery tales).

That's _relatively_, though. I still find that my most valuable design effort is in fleshing out NPC individuals and organizations, and the precincts of the city. A given thread may play no direct role in the events of the next session, but the rich tapestry as a whole makes my game mastering much easier!


----------



## Beginning of the End (Apr 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Umm, what?  While yes, a plan that a person has is a plot, usually for some nefarious scheme, what does that meaning have to do with this thread?




Nothing. Which is why you bringing it up was worth commenting upon.



> > The difference, however, lies not in the story that can be told after the fact. It lies in the prep. If you're prepared a plot before you play the game, then that's very different than a game in which there is no plot before you play through the events. It is, in fact, possible to have a game in which there is no predetermined plot.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't.  It really isn't.  The second you have any connection between events, you have a plot.




I wish you'd stop posting complete non sequiturs. I find them very difficult to respond to. Let's try this: 

What part of the word "predetermined" did you not comprehend? 

What part of the distinction between "prepared before you play" and "story that can be told after you play" did you fail to understand? 

What part of "I would argue that the real world does have plots" and "similarly all the campaigns I have played in have plots" did you simply not read at all?



> > The shift to "planning a story" really got underway (as far as D&D went) in 2nd ed. AD&D. The "linear dungeon" (like "kosher pork" to traditionalists) is something of which I saw a lot in the 3E period, and have seen continued apparently as the default model in 4E. "Adventure path" (perhaps AKA "railroad"?) seems to have become the prevalent campaign concept, building on the "playing modules" approach that became widespread in the 2E era.
> 
> 
> 
> How is this NOT a badwrongfun post?




Because it never says "playing that way is wrong"? Because, in fact, it quite explicitly says that different people will have different opinions and tastes and styles of play?

Saying "I like X and I don't like Y" is not a "badwrongfun post".


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 10, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> I am sure you probably have seen me mention the drag-and-drop style. Well by using that one can quickly build wherever the PCs are going by taking these components and addressing them to what the PCs are planning on doing/planning to go too. Of course to not be predictable one would spice it up, add mystery, etc. But this be other components dragged into the core drag-and-drop element. Thus one need not know what the setting is like at all till the player's actions dictate the shape of the world.



I've seen you mention this "drag-and-drop style" on numerous occasions and have never quite known what you meant by it.  Please explain; in small words and short sentences as I'm a Lanefan of very little brain tonight. 

Lanefan


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 10, 2009)

As to history, I am not aware of any hard data; SPI accumulated quite a bit about its war-gamer demographic, but WotC's relatively limited research is I think ground-breaking in the RPG field. So, I go with what information I have been able to gather. A lot comes from personal experience that may be as unrepresentative as yours.

It's "not a badwrongfun post" because it says nothing about badness, wrongness or fun.

It has struck quite a few people that the "game philosophy" in the 2E books often seems at odds with the mechanical rules presented in that same context. The reason is simply that the rules were carried over from a game designed with a different philosophy.

That's the problem here. Wouldn't apples be much better if they looked, felt, smelled and tasted more like oranges? "Actually ... no," is the response of folks who happen to like apples and therefore directed themselves to the apple barrel instead of going to the crate of oranges.

Besides superhero games in general, I have found that *Call of Cthulhu*, *Paranoia*, *King Arthur Pendragon* and some others tend to encourage plot-driven scenarios -- and with results I have greatly enjoyed.

What do they have in common? They're not D&D.


----------



## Lanefan (Apr 10, 2009)

PrecociousApprentice said:


> I think that I would echo Fallen Seraph here and also elaborate on what you said Lanefan. What you wrote in your post is getting exactly at what the subtle difference is. Fallen Seraph points out the you do need to plan so that you can stay at least one step ahead of the characters, and the nature of that planning can potentiate or hinder your ability to improvise.



Large-scale improvising (e.g. inventing entire empires on the fly) is exactly what I don't want to do, as all it does is give me more work later a) trying to remember it all correctly, and b) trying to fit it in with whatever else existed beforehand.  I'd rather do the large-scale heavy lifting ahead of time rather than after the fact, to give myself time for the small-scale work that will inevitably come up as the campaign rolls along.


> I would again say that the big difference between worldbuilders and setting constructors is that for a worldbuilder, maps of physical areas are important. They help them to crystalize the relationships of the elements of the world around the PCs. This helps because you can't control what the PCs do, so if you know where things are, you can respond easily.



For a geographer (which by education at least, I am) maps are also important.







> Maps can be the bane of a setting constructor. Having a crystalized set of geographical relationships hinders a DMs ability to drop elements into his game wherever he wants them, and hinders his ability to respond in a plot apropriate manner.



Yet you still end up with maps anyway, or at least you'd better if you're tracking what you improvise; only difference is you've built these maps as you go along.  15 adventures in, you're still tied to a map (unless your world has no internal consistency at all and the mountain range that was there last winter isn't there now, and that raises all kinds of other issues) so why not just build the flippin' map ahead of time and get done with it?



> I think that the big difference is that the worldbuilder focuses on the geography and the world, while the setting constructionist focuses on the action that the PCs will find themselves in. Worldbuilding is a very multidimensional process, with at least two dimensions of a map, as well as a third in time, and many more in the economies, politics, etc... Setting construction is likely more linear. It focuses on events. This focus on time instead of space makes setting construction more efficient, because playing an RPG is an event, it is a linear structure.



No it's not, unless you specifically set out to make it so; impossible if there's more than one party operating concurrently in your world (right now, mine has three).  While not perhaps railroads, linear campaigns - wherein one mostly-unchanging party goes through a series of adventures whether story-connected or not - are to me the most dull. (they are also, unfortunately, the most common; probably because they are the assumed playstyle) 







> There will be tons of material that is not addressed in a worldbuilder's campaign. A good setting constructionist can minimize these inefficiencies.



So what.  The worldbuilder doesn't know what will or will not be used until the campaign is over, but has already done much of the work and can mostly sit back and enjoy the ride.  The setting builder has to work hard the whole time just to keep up...how is that more efficient?



> Detailed worlds place restrictions on PC action just as much as detailed plots. Detailed worlds specify where things will interacted with, and what those things are. The PCs can choose where to go, and what to do, but they have to go to specific places to do things, and there is no guarantee that there is anything interesting to do there. Just a detailed area of the map. That is a limitation on PC action.



And also a lot more realistic; a good thing, in my view.  If I want to see Stonehenge, for example, I've got to go to the Salisbury Plain, because that's where Stonehenge is; it's not going to appear in front of me if I wander into the Sooke Hills west of Victoria.


> Detailed plots specify what things happen to the PCs and why



Fine.







> but not necessarily where,



Why not?  The "where" could very well *be* part of the plot. 







> and definitely do not demand a certain response by the PCs. The response of the PCs is completely open during play. I would contend that this is what heroism actually is. Responding to bad situations in a good way. If you want to play heros, it is much easier in a plot driven campaign.



Huh?  This seems a non-sequitur to me.  In my world-built game, I can throw bad situations at my party with just as much gay abandon as I could if it was setting-built.

Lan-"have the Sooke Hills ever been mentioned before on ENWorld?"-efan


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 10, 2009)

Lanefan said:


> I've seen you mention this "drag-and-drop style" on numerous occasions and have never quite known what you meant by it.  Please explain; in small words and short sentences as I'm a Lanefan of very little brain tonight.
> 
> Lanefan



Lol, no problem.

It essentially starts with just brainstorming. I generate a large quantity of landscapes, NPCs, plot-ideas, encounters, etc, etc. But I leave them open and not tied down to any specific aspect of the setting beyond them generally sticking with the atmosphere and themes of the campaign. These can be either specific like certain "set-pieces" (think the major action scenes in a movie) or broad and highly adaptable.

When it comes time to run the game I have all these resources at my disposal that I can "drag and drop" into the game whenever it suits me best. So the PCs state that they plan to head to a mine, I "drag and drop" the elements I generated prior to the game to make up this mine. 

Or, if the plotline leads down to a point where the PCs enter a mineshaft then I take the elements that fit that and add it in. 

The benefit I find to this style is that I have lots of preparation but more freedom I find then with a solid setting. I need something somewhere it comes into existence, the PCs want to go somewhere it appears. Essentially by using these components I got before hand nothing need exist till it needs too. It gives myself as a DM lots of room to craft the setting and what inhabits within it around the actions of the PCs and the plot, rather then vice-versa.

I bring my laptop too the game with me so each of these "drag and drop" elements are on my laptop so all it takes is a simple click of the button and I got it there infront of me. It takes about the same time to set up a battlegrid with minis that it takes me to set up a new town with NPCs, specifically tailored to what is happening in the plot/actions of the PCs.

That is about as clear as I can make it. I am tempted to make a forked thread actually where each of us just goes step-by-step through our campaign/adventure prep and also running of a game.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Apr 10, 2009)

I have no desire to get into definition arguments between those preferring Forge jargon and those repeating the older definitions of RPG terms before the Big Model was theorized in order to redefine them.  

What I would like to point out are a few of things:

1. World building is not an activity performed by a Referee.  World buliding is like level design in a CRPG.  It is a game designer activity.  Just like building a module is, but on a broader scale.

2. Referees (and by association hopefully most DMs) never have any fiat over what happens in an RPG.  This includes even when they are in the role of Auxiliary by acting out an NPC.  It is important to remember the only people who are taking improvised actions are the Players.  Everything else that occurs in the game is either a processed result of Player actions or scripted and proscribed NPC actions by the game designer. 

3. Storygamers are playing a game that is the near polar opposite to traditional roleplaying games. Storygames are based upon theatre, addressing theme, and constructing plots.  They were built upon what was originally called Munchkinism in the early, _earliest_ days of RPGs.  By contrast, roleplaying games as they have been known since 1974 are based upon "roleplay simulation" derived from roleplayed military simulations (the other half of wargaming).  These two designs are the inverted opposites to each other, so when arguments arise about the nature of good RPG game design, game play, the role of the DM, and much, much more it is almost always the case that each of the two sides define the same terms, but different elements, by using polar opposite definitions for each.  Does this mean either definition is wrong?  No.  It just means there are two different games going on here, the kind that has been prevalently known as roleplaying games since 1974 and the new "Indie" Storygames that have come out of the Forge these past few years.  The big problem is - in my opinion - the seemingly purposeful redefinition of RPG terms to validate Forge-defined definitions and Big Model-based game design as "true" for all RPGs. instead of true for just storygames.

4. The "Big Model" theory is useful to know even if you never plan on playing Storygames.  This is not so people who have loved the hobby for years can hear derogatory remarks and argumentative attacks against non-storygames and non-Forge-based RPG designs.  Rather it is to know this new jargon and also the redefinitions of old RPG vocabulary terms in order to comprehend when one is conversing with a Storygamer or follower of the Big Model who is simply playing (or prefers) the inversion of the kind of game you and I do.  For instance: terms like "railroading" I noticed are having their Forge-based definitions used in this thread as if it were the only definition leading to consensus even though that definition is wholly inaccurate for describing what is happening in non-storygames.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> Nothing. Which is why you bringing it up was worth commenting upon.




Looking back, I realize why you went astray there.  When I asked if NPC's had goals, that wasn't plot in the sense of "nefarious plan".  It was simply the fact that if any actor in your game has goals, you automatically have a plot.  My bad for ambiguity.

What I really don't understand is Aristo's comment that plot is anathema to gaming styles.  Again, if you have no plot in your game, how can you possibly be playing a role playing game?



> I wish you'd stop posting complete non sequiturs. I find them very difficult to respond to. Let's try this:
> 
> What part of the word "predetermined" did you not comprehend?
> 
> What part of the distinction between "prepared before you play" and "story that can be told after you play" did you fail to understand?




The part where that distinction is entirely false insofar as this conversation is concerned.  

Look, if Baron Von Badass has a plan to assassinate the king - is that a plot?  It's certainly predetermined by the DM.  Heck, unless the PC's intervene, I would say that the outcome is also completely predetermined by the DM as well.  It would be a pretty rare DM who would actually roll his way through an assassination by himself and toss out his adventure if the rolls didn't go his way.



> What part of "I would argue that the real world does have plots" and "similarly all the campaigns I have played in have plots" did you simply not read at all?




So, why are you arguing with me if you agree with me?



> Because it never says "playing that way is wrong"? Because, in fact, it quite explicitly says that different people will have different opinions and tastes and styles of play?
> 
> Saying "I like X and I don't like Y" is not a "badwrongfun post".




Ok.  I can agree that "I like X and I don't like Y" is not a badwrongfun post.  Unfortunately, I don't seem to have the apparent secret decoder glasses that allow me to ignore all the snark and whatnot and see Aristo's point.  He's basically straight up said that anyone who doesn't play the way he plays isn't really playing D&D.  But, apparently, that's not badwrongfun posting.  Fine.  I'll let it go.

Howandwhy.

Umm, are you saying that no DM out there should world build?



> 1. World building is not an activity performed by a Referee. World buliding is like level design in a CRPG. It is a game designer activity. Just like building a module is, but on a broader scale.




And, for the love of God, can we stop with the edition war crap?  FFS, this is not about any specific edition at all.  I would very much prefer to go back to discussing the pros and cons of world building.  If you cannot couch your argument without referring to an edition, fork the thread and take it elsewhere.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Apr 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Howandwhy.
> 
> Umm, are you saying that no DM out there should world build?



Of course not.  Folks are free to make House Rules.  That's what homebrewing is.  Just realize that what they are doing is game design, not playing the game.



> And, for the love of God, can we stop with the edition war crap?  FFS, this is not about any specific edition at all.  I would very much prefer to go back to discussing the pros and cons of world building.  If you cannot couch your argument without referring to an edition, fork the thread and take it elsewhere.



I'm not referring to 4E or any version of D&D at all in my response.  Just that there are two different activities calling themselves roleplaying, one is the vast majority of what we historically know as RPGs and the other more commonly referred to as Storygames.  They are as different as fire drills and community theatre.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 10, 2009)

I have voiced opinions about what *Madonna* plays, but the "jazz" radio programmers and the "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame disagree.

I have certainly *not* said that someone playing differently is not playing D&D. The vagueness as to what that might mean in 1977 was nothing next to the confusion in 2009.

Hussar, I cannot believe that you don't grasp the difference between an environment in which many events are occurring and a singular story with a linear plot-line.

Your notion that the DM always _has_ "his adventure" in the first place is parochial. As I have said repeatedly, what are appropriate means may depend upon one's ends. You, however, seem not to admit the traditional D&D campaign as a legitimate end.

So be it. I and others have pointed out the returns we find on investment in what you would call "world building but not setting building." I have observed that I see such benefits even in running plot-driven games.

Our methods may not suit you, but they have proven useful in long experience. What you hope to gain by hurling hyperbole at us is beyond me.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2009)

howandwhy99 said:


> Of course not.  Folks are free to make House Rules.  That's what homebrewing is.  Just realize that what they are doing is game design, not playing the game.
> 
> I'm not referring to 4E or any version of D&D at all in my response.  Just that there are two different activities calling themselves roleplaying, one is the vast majority of what we historically know as RPGs and the other more commonly referred to as Storygames.  They are as different as fire drills and community theatre.




Sorry HowandWhy, that last bit wasn't directed at you at all.  I know you didn't reference any other edition in your post.  That's groovy.  There are a few though who seem to want to start banging this as an edition specific thing (cue references to 2e and the like) and I was hoping to nip that in the bud.

Back to the topic. 

We're not going to agree on this.  Your definition of what a role playing game consists of is just so alien to my experience that I cannot find any common ground in which to hold a discourse.  To claim that story based games are somehow not role playing while traditional RPG's are is something I just cannot comment on.  I'm quite frankly speechless.

And here I thought I was being all ambitious trying to redefine world building vs setting construction.  Damn, you leave me humbled.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I have voiced opinions about what *Madonna* plays, but the "jazz" radio programmers and the "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame disagree.
> 
> I have certainly *not* said that someone playing differently is not playing D&D. The vagueness as to what that might mean in 1977 was nothing next to the confusion in 2009.
> 
> ...




Holy crap.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?  Go back to the top of this page, or maybe one page back and READ THE SUMMARY I made of this idea.  

In there I specifically state EXACTLY what you are saying.  That this is better suited for some kinds of games.  That I think this makes for better games is simply my opinion, just like yours.

I realize it was a bit of a wall of text, but good grief, if you're going to continually take me to task over something, at least have the decency to read it first.

I NEVER SAID THIS WAS THE ONLY WAY TO DO THINGS.

I did say that I thought this was a better way than the traditional way of doing things.  Good grief, what do you expect.  "Hrm, I have this new idea for how you can create campaigns.  It's not as good as what you're doing now, but, please, take time out of your day to read my ideas and critique".  

Seriously?  That's what I should be saying?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2009)

Hey, 'cos I'm a nice guy, here's the Linky to my summary of my points.  Feel free to critique, but, please, can we leave the mindless semantic debates at the door?


----------



## howandwhy99 (Apr 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Sorry HowandWhy, that last bit wasn't directed at you at all.  I know you didn't reference any other edition in your post.  That's groovy.  There are a few though who seem to want to start banging this as an edition specific thing (cue references to 2e and the like) and I was hoping to nip that in the bud.
> 
> Back to the topic.
> 
> ...



You seem like a nice guy Hussar, so I'll let you in on a little information.  Probably too early for me to really release this yet, but it does help in what I'm trying to explain.  It helps (however slightly) to illuminate the difference between what roleplaying in a theatre is versus "roleplaying simulation".  That's a specific term newly minted in the last 10-15 years by sociologists to refer to the type of roleplaying from which D&D (and our hobby) was originally termed.  

Here's the link which helps explain some of the major differences between the two models of RPG design.  Can you guess which one is traditional design and which is storygame RPG design (i.e. big model theory)?

One hint: RPGs turned pretty crappy in the 90's when they tried to include plotlines and stories into RPGs.  This was a "bad idea" as RPGs under the most widely known definition (outside our hobby anyways) did not lend itself to plots and stories.  But Storygames have sought to change that.  They view roleplaying as the very act of conveying a story collaboratively.  But they also use a very narrow configuration of roleplaying group role assignation in order to attain their overall definition and corresponding theory which all follows from it (basically they were looking for improv theatre)

Originally RPGs were not storytelling games at all.  They were, and are, guessing games.  And strategy and tactics were relevant to the actions one was performing, not to the choice of rule to enact.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 10, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Hey, 'cos I'm a nice guy, here's the Linky to my summary of my points.  Feel free to critique, but, please, can we leave the mindless semantic debates at the door?




I'm your Huckleberry... 



Hussar said:


> *Background*
> 
> Some time ago I got tied into a rather lengthy thread about world building and whether it was a good or bad thing.  That thread's been linked earlier in this thread if you really want to read it.  One of the points that I tried to get across is that world building and setting construction are not synonymous.
> 
> ...




Again for the record I think your defining of world-building vs. setting-building is fundamentally flawed in numerous ways.  The largest being it assumes only one type of campaign and that is the scripted campaign.  You see honestly this, IMO, is the biggest flaw with your method in comparison to world-building... it's not universally applicable.   How do I construct a sand-box style campaign, where the PC's have a wide-berth of true choices without eventually designing somewhere, something or someone that is not and may never be relevant to the current action?  It's impossible.  In world-building nothing stops me from catering to a scripted campaign... more energy, sure.  Wasted effort, perhaps.  But I can still create a scripted campaign through world-building... what I can't do is create a sand-box campaign from setting-building (as you define it).



Hussar said:


> But, I do think there is another approach.
> 
> So, there, enough of that.  Let's get to the meat of things.  The pros and cons of this approach.
> 
> ...




As I have said earlier in this thread, there are numerous disadvantages in using this method with both new and casual players.  A casual player probably will not desire to put in any effort towards creating a world...they just want to play, and may even resent being forced to help do what they perceive as the "DM's job".  A new player on the other hand is probably best served by just getting to play first before being thrust into campaign design... not the other way around.  Though I will admit I see nothing wrong with this method for experienced players, but then it's not universally applicable is it?

Finally an even bigger disadvantage, IMO, is that it can, at least partly, ruin some or all of the surprise and wonder from any player who actually might be interested in discovery and exploration while playing the game.  For some it could be akin to a magician having them help set up everything to work before a magic show...and thus learning at least some of what is going to happen in the  show and how the tricks are performed and then having to watch the show.  Will the show still be enjoyable?  For many or even most probably so... but for many it will also be diminished. 



Hussar said:


> 2.  Less work load for the DM.  This is pretty obvious.  If you aren't going to spend time detailing the setting beyond elements that fit with the campaign that you and your players have discussed before hand, then you are not going to do as much work as the DM who has to create an entire country or more.
> 
> The downside of this, again, is a limit on the freedom of the players.  That's true.  Now, since the players have already bought into this campaign, that shouldn't be a huge issue - if we've decided as a group that the campaign is going to follow the adventures of a mercenary group during a war between elves and dwarves, player's shouldn't be complaining that they can't start dragon hunting.  But, it is a limitation of scope at the outset.
> 
> Honestly, IMO, I think that limitation is usually done by DM's anyway.  Most DM's are going to have some rough idea of what the campaign is going to be about before play starts, so, I'm not sure how much more constraining this is.




I think you make a big assumptions here, there's constraining...First adventure will be the Pits o' Doom, second will be the Dread Swamp, etc... and there's less constraining...Let's see they don't have horses so they can probably travel about five days out at most, let's see they could explore the Pits o' Doom or the Dread Swamp and Elkin Village, etc.  Your method seems to fall apart in the second example and you basically admit as much in the above post... so can I ask how is this better if it is more restraining and doesn't really cover a particular playstyle well?  

Also it doesn't help your argument to assume "  Most DM's are going to have some rough idea of what the campaign is going to be about before play starts".  Your making assumptions that you can't back up to strengthen your argument...but it doesn't.  



Hussar said:


> 3.  Better ties between players, characters and the campaign.  Since everyone is already on board before you even start the campaign, you won't have the "random band of misfits meet in a bar" syndrome that plagues many campaigns.  The players are already on board, so they should be making characters that not only fit with each other, but with the campaign itself.
> 
> You won't have players accidentally sidelining themselves because of miscommunications between the DM and the players over what the campaign is about.  The players, hopefully since they had a hand in getting the campaign off the ground, have a pretty good idea of what the campaign is about already and should make characters that fit with that.
> 
> ...




I don't even see how this in any way supports your method over worldbuilding and just seems like a problem that can arise in any campaign if the DM and players lack communication. 

 Having the same themes and your characters goals in mind can just as readily lead to "misfits in an inn"... as reading blurbs on countries and coming up with characters tied to each other through the alliances of those countries can lead to cohesion.  Inherently it has nothing to do with setting-building or world-building but group communication. 

I honestly see one big disadvantage here you seem to be overlooking, the fact that things must be pre-decided.  Before you even get to play a character or run an adventure, everyone has a set theme, set goals, set everything... now to me that's limiting.  Not only that, what happens if these themes or goals end up being unfun or you decide you want to change them after a few sessions... yet the DM has crafted the entirety of the campaign around focusing on them.  

I find it much better to let players explore what exactly they want from a game through play and the organic evolution of their characters.   Give them a world with broad strokes and let the PC's discover what kind of adventures, themes and goals they want to create through play.



Hussar said:


> 4.  This one is both a plus and a minus at the same time.  The campaign is going to be tighter.  It just is.  The players and the DM are all on the same page at the outset (or should be) which means that the campaign is going to be much more focused than a standard campaign.  This is good in that I think that it will result in deeper role play - less time spent screwing around and more time spent exploring the pre-defined themes.  On the downside, it will likely result in shorter campaigns since, once your finished exploring this theme, you're done.    To be honest, I think this style of campaign design lends itself more to narrative (gack I hate Forgisms) style play where exploring themes and concepts is more important than simulating or systems.




I call bull on this...all of it. 

 When given the freedom to let their characters grow organically and without the artificial restraints of script, pre-planned plot, and pre-determined themes and goals... players will engage in deeper and more meaningful roleplay as their characters are no longer restrained to exploring pre-defined aspects of the campaign world.  The game will be tighter because the PC's have what feels like a real, living world to interact with and their actions can have unforseen consequences thus choices must be considered carefully.  There will be less time spent screwing around and more time spent interacting and engaging with the world, in a naturalistic fashion, as a whole and all it contains.  It will likely result in longer campaigns as, just like in real life, the themes and goals being explored will change, mature and grow as the characters and the world do.  To be honest I think this style of campaign can lend itself to both narrative and simulationism... depending upon which the players and GM decide to explore.

See how easy that was?  Not saying I necessarily agree with everything above, but it's all subjective anyway.



Hussar said:


> So, there you have it.  The giant wall of text.  Perhaps I should have written this several pages ago, but it took me this long to work it out in my own head.  Whatcha think?




Well I still believe your method of campaign design isn't as good in a general sense as world-building... but if it works for you and your group then more power to you.


----------



## Rel (Apr 10, 2009)

Yeah, we're very done here I think.


----------

