The Art and Science of Worldbuilding For Gameplay [+]

[Reynard]

One thing I think is important for gameplay oriented world building is to not hinge the world on a singular story within it. To use Eberron as an example again, the nature of the Mourning is indeed an important and interesting story in the world that can fuel all kinds of adventures, but even if a campaign solves the mystery or even undoes the Mourning, Eberron as a world continues on. The world changes,which is good, but the next campaign can follow in the same Eberron.

Worlds built around a singular, defining central story -- Krynn for example -- are often less easily adapted to other stories. This isn't always true, of course, but it is telling that Krynn got a lot bigger as 2E wore on, in order to try and make it a broader world with stories to tell beyond the War of the Lance and its fallout.

 

[MGibster]

While we can debate the relative value of each of these different techniques in this thread, I am more interested in a specific aspect of world building for RPGs: playability.

When it comes to a setting for a role playing game, playability is paramount as far as I'm concerned. As you wrote, it's got to be designed with adventure in mind. One of my favorite settings of any RPG is the one for Blue Planet. It's got a lot of interesting political and social events going on, there's a whole planet to explore, and it's extremely well written. The biggest problem I have with it is that the authors' do not provide the reader with any sort of framework for a campaign. What do you do? Anything you want of course. But like a kid in a candy store, it's hard to make a choice.

One of my mantras is to avoid over design. Do I really need to consider all the holidays and religious services offered by a the Church of Esoteric Eroticism? No. Not unless it's something that's likely to come up in play. Don't spend a lot of time on things your players are unlikely to be interested in. If the religious services are going to be important to an adventure you're working on, then by all means provide some more detail but spend your time working on something else.

 

[Emberashh]

I don't see how this is consistent with the OP:

You seem to be positing that the GM takes suggestions about the world from players, during play, and then changes the world in ways that have nothing to do with characters' experiences and actions.

I believe the disconnect you're having is that you aren't recognizing that an action is taking place in that example. When the player directs their character to search for a Secret entrance, their success at finding one (through whatever resolution mechanism the game uses) is what says if there is one definitively. Failure doesn't mean there wouldn't be one to find, but it does mean whoever tries again will have to succeed against a higher difficulty, and that the question of whether there is one or not has an unknowable answer until someone succeeds.

Its still a choice being made because they're attempting to avoid having to make the choice to brute force their way in, or take whatever other routes are available. To actually deny this would be robbing the players of their volition.

Now, unless the change is basically flavor, there is no reason to just unthinkingly add huge, consequential things wholesale to the world on a players whims, but there's also no reason to deny the possibility of a secret entrance to a building. That just isn't that critical of a detail and if it is you did your worldbuilding wrong.

And plus, it doesn't have to be an actual secret entrance anyway. A successful check on the players part could instead just reveal an opportunity to make their ingress easier, which is effectively what they're really asking for. The secret entrance part is not important.

 

[Reynard]

When it comes to a setting for a role playing game, playability is paramount as far as I'm concerned. As you wrote, it's got to be designed with adventure in mind. One of my favorite settings of any RPG is the one for Blue Planet. It's got a lot of interesting political and social events going on, there's a whole planet to explore, and it's extremely well written. The biggest problem I have with it is that the authors' do not provide the reader with any sort of framework for a campaign. What do you do? Anything you want of course. But like a kid in a candy store, it's hard to make a choice.

I agree wholeheartedly, both in general and about Blue Planet in particular. Very cool setting.

One of my mantras is to avoid over design. Do I really need to consider all the holidays and religious services offered by a the Church of Esoteric Eroticism? No. Not unless it's something that's likely to come up in play. Don't spend a lot of time on things your players are unlikely to be interested in. If the religious services are going to be important to an adventure you're working on, then by all means provide some more detail but spend your time working on something else.

I am coming at this prom the perspective that the GM's time is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited from a world building perspective. We can assume they have been building there world for 40 years as their primary hobby (or whatever justification you need). In that light, there is no choice to be made about where to put effort, so I think that is is perfectly valid and useful to detail the Order of Esoteric Eroticism. First of all, it is a cool thing to add to the world and therefore it is valuable in and of itself. But even beyond that, the fact that it exists means a player may want to engage with it, thereby enhancing play. But, as stated, the world building around the Order needs to provide elements of play such as adventure seeds.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think if you're not agreeable to changing pre-determined things in play then you're missing a very critical tool.

Its one thing if the change completely upends the entire point ("I look for the rock thatll let me cast Wish!"), but presumably the point in that example is to get into the building and up to whatever the actual goal is, which isn't merely to get into the building. Adding a secret entrance isn't a problem, in that instance.

How is this not equivalent to 'leave blanks' in a general sense? That is, some things are simply not determined. In fact the most general principle is nothing that hasn't entered play is really established as 'truth'.

 

[Emberashh]

How is this not equivalent to 'leave blanks' in a general sense? That is, some things are simply not determined. In fact the most general principle is nothing that hasn't entered play is really established as 'truth'.

Because nothing isn't really the same thing as being blank, and that doesn't change if the possibility of shifting nothing into something is there.

An actual blank in this instance would be not designing or otherwise codifyinf any specific way to enter the building; in the given example, its at least implied that this isn't the case, and that theres at least one pre-defined entrance.

Plus, it should also be noted that in most games, this practice is already in effect even if one doesn't recognize it.

Any ability or rule that allows players to make changes in the world is the same exact thing in play as what I described. If you have an ability that lets you blow a hole into that building, then it doesn't matter how much you wrote about that building unless you explicitly tried to counter that ability beforehand.

And it should also be noted that I don't think this topic is about creating a game experience where improvisation is just, not allowed. To do so completely misses the point of TTRPGs as a game medium.

 

[TwoSix]

And it should also be noted that I don't think this topic is about creating a game experience where improvisation is just, not allowed. To do so completely misses the point of TTRPGs as a game medium.

Since this is a [+] thread about world-building techniques, I feel like the takeaway should be that world-building that is detailed to the point that improvisation becomes actively difficult at the table is probably not the best use of world-building time.

 

[prabe]

Since this is a [+] thread about world-building techniques, I feel like the takeaway should be that world-building that is detailed to the point that improvisation becomes actively difficult at the table is probably not the best use of world-building time.

I'd add that there seems to be difference of opinion on how much prep is necessary, how much prep is useful, and how much prep is too much in the sense that it makes improv difficult.

 

[Reynard]

Since this is a [+] thread about world-building techniques, I feel like the takeaway should be that world-building that is detailed to the point that improvisation becomes actively difficult at the table is probably not the best use of world-building time.

What would be an example of this?

I'd add that there seems to be difference of opinion on how much prep is necessary, how much prep is useful, and how much prep is too much in the sense that it makes improv difficult.

I don't want to conflate session or adventure prep with world building in this thread.

 

[Emberashh]

Since this is a [+] thread about world-building techniques, I feel like the takeaway should be that world-building that is detailed to the point that improvisation becomes actively difficult at the table is probably not the best use of world-building time.

Is improv difficult because you wrote a lot or is it difficult because you're not allowing improv?

There's a difference.