The Art and Science of Worldbuilding For Gameplay [+]

[Emberashh]

Speaking of semantic quibbles, "constrain" and "limit" are synonyms. It's a bit rich to pretend they're not for the sake of scoring rhetorical points in an online discussion.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. My statement was relating is that constraints/limits are not a separate thing from gameplay.

You can't design a game where some element of it only exists because the designer demands it exists. Such elements always fail.

Constraints applied to a game to limit its gameplay are such elements. Constraints that result from gameplay are not the same thing.

And yes, none of this is intuitive. Game design often isn't, and there's a great deal of nuance here too.

But if you need a simpler way to think about this:

Where does the decision to allow an RPG character to be customized come from? Why would one choose to make the character of their game Geralt of Rivia, versus the more generic Last Dragonborn? How does one choose to what degree between these relative extremes will be the level of customization players will be capable of?

Naturally, there is no fixed right answer, as the answer depends on the game experience you want to foster, and as such that decision needs to emerge from the basic gameplay of your game. Whether this decision constrains possibilities or not is immaterial, the gameplay is not affected, because any constraint that arises (and to be clear, every answer in that spectrum provides constraints) is fundamentally in support of the gameplay, enriching and emphasizing the game experience you intend to foster.

But there is a fixed wrong answer, and its dictating that the answer, whatever it is, is to be done for reasons that have nothing to do with gameplay. If you are worldbuilding and approaching it from a position of limiting gameplay, you are wrong.

This is taking an RPG gameworld and writing it so that choices and progression are impossible. This is taking an action shooter game and taking away all the guns, explosions, and what have you.

This is writing a world where adventurers have no reason to exist and where adventuring is punished at every turn, despite the gameplay being all about adventuring.

 

[Reynard]

That has nothing to do with gameplay.



See above.

If you don't see how those limit gameplay, there's really no point, is there?

It seems self evident to say that any definition (setting or system) is going to limit gameplay in the sense that we are not (and never have been) talking about a completely unbounded form of play. We knew from the outset, if by context alone, that we were talking about TTRPGs (it is right there next to the title of the thread). Therefore, it seems like a non sequitur at best to have this discussion in this thread.

What might be a valuable discussion is how to use boundaries developed in world building to enhance gameplay by reinforcing the things that the game in question (whatever it may be) does well.

 

[Emberashh]

If you don't see how those limit gameplay, there's really no point, is there?

See previous post. What Im getting at is a problem of approaching design completely backwards, and missing that constraints are a part of gameplay, and not a separate thing from it.

There's a reason why "games" where you have no actual limits are boring, and why cheat modes rob games of their fun.

 

[prabe]

See previous post. What Im getting at is a problem of approaching design completely backwards, and missing that constraints are a part of gameplay, and not a separate thing from it.

There's a reason why "games" where you have no actual limits are boring, and why cheat modes rob games of their fun.

If you establish something now, you are eliminating the possibility for someone to establish it--or probably something else--later. This seems like a limit--a constraint--whatever--on gameplay to me.

Limits aren't bad, as I said. It's easier to fill in a blank if you know what's around it than it is if it has no context. Everything that has happened in a TRPG serves to limit the possibilities of what can happen in the future.

 

[Emberashh]

This seems like a limit--a constraint--whatever--on gameplay to me.

Writing =/= gameplay.

 

[prabe]

Writing =/= gameplay.

So gameplay doesn't establish things, then?

 

[Emberashh]

Let me make an analogy:

To suggest constraints limit gameplay is like saying pulp or juice limits oranges.

 

[MichaelSomething]

When it comes to word definitions, I find specific and limited generally works better than "vague and open-ended".

Do you play 5E?

 

[hawkeyefan]

What might be a valuable discussion is how to use boundaries developed in world building to enhance gameplay by reinforcing the things that the game in question (whatever it may be) does well.

I have a couple of examples that may suit.

"Spire: The City Must Fall" is a game that's about society, inequality, oppression, and revolution and its cost. It's a game about espionage, subterfuge, and resistance.

There are several worldbuilding choices made to reinforce those themes. The game takes place in the eponymous Spire, a mile high city of unknown origin (called an Arcology, of which there are several others in the world) that once belonged to the Drow, but has now been taken over by the high-elves, or Aelfir. The Aelfir rule the city and the Drow, using them for labor, entertainment, and conscripting many to fight in a war against the Gnolls of Far Nujab. Some Gnolls have made their way to Spire, as have many Humans, who are curious by nature and tend to tinker with the Arcologies like Spire and other technological remnants.

Of those racial options, the game requires that all PCs be Drow. This is a choice to help focus the themes of the game by making the players take on the roles of those for whom they're most relevant.

The PCs are also members of a secret cabal devoted to resisting Aelfir rule, the Ministry of Our Hidden Mistress. This puts them directly into situations that will require espionage and resistance. They’re meant to actively involve themselves in resisting high-elf rule.

The city itself is divided into multiple levels or districts, each with its own vibe and its own situations going on. So if you want to involve gangs and the drug trade and similar content, you should play in Red Row. If you want to focus on the heights of Aelfir authority, then Amaranth is the district for you.

Now, I wasn’t privy to the designers’ process, but I don’t think that these world elements were designed ahead of the design considerations. Like, they knew the themes of their game and then designed the world to deliver those themes in play.

“Blades in the Dark” is similar. The city of Doskvol was designed to help deliver the intended play experience. The characters are daring criminals who have to take what they want. But they have to face the consequences of their actions. What makes that harder? The PCs can’t easily skip town and lay low. The city is isolated, mostly cut off from other cities, surrounded by haunted wastelands and contained by a lightning barrier that keeps horrors from entering the city.

The Ghost Field permeates everything and can be a hindrance to the PCs or a tool they can use, if they want to risk it. There are all kinds of factions in the city, and no matter how tough the PC crew gets, there’s always a tougher faction out there.

All of these decisions made for worldbuilding are made to serve play. The designers of both games first thought about the game, and then built their world to suit.

I think that’s vital for the idea of worldbuilding with a mind toward playability.

 

[Reynard]

I have a couple of examples that may suit.

"Spire: The City Must Fall" is a game that's about society, inequality, oppression, and revolution and its cost. It's a game about espionage, subterfuge, and resistance.

There are several worldbuilding choices made to reinforce those themes. The game takes place in the eponymous Spire, a mile high city of unknown origin (called an Arcology, of which there are several others in the world) that once belonged to the Drow, but has now been taken over by the high-elves, or Aelfir. The Aelfir rule the city and the Drow, using them for labor, entertainment, and conscripting many to fight in a war against the Gnolls of Far Nujab. Some Gnolls have made their way to Spire, as have many Humans, who are curious by nature and tend to tinker with the Arcologies like Spire and other technological remnants.

Of those racial options, the game requires that all PCs be Drow. This is a choice to help focus the themes of the game by making the players take on the roles of those for whom they're most relevant.

The PCs are also members of a secret cabal devoted to resisting Aelfir rule, the Ministry of Our Hidden Mistress. This puts them directly into situations that will require espionage and resistance. They’re meant to actively involve themselves in resisting high-elf rule.

The city itself is divided into multiple levels or districts, each with its own vibe and its own situations going on. So if you want to involve gangs and the drug trade and similar content, you should play in Red Row. If you want to focus on the heights of Aelfir authority, then Amaranth is the district for you.

Now, I wasn’t privy to the designers’ process, but I don’t think that these world elements were designed ahead of the design considerations. Like, they knew the themes of their game and then designed the world to deliver those themes in play.

“Blades in the Dark” is similar. The city of Doskvol was designed to help deliver the intended play experience. The characters are daring criminals who have to take what they want. But they have to face the consequences of their actions. What makes that harder? The PCs can’t easily skip town and lay low. The city is isolated, mostly cut off from other cities, surrounded by haunted wastelands and contained by a lightning barrier that keeps horrors from entering the city.

The Ghost Field permeates everything and can be a hindrance to the PCs or a tool they can use, if they want to risk it. There are all kinds of factions in the city, and no matter how tough the PC crew gets, there’s always a tougher faction out there.

All of these decisions made for worldbuilding are made to serve play. The designers of both games first thought about the game, and then built their world to suit.

I think that’s vital for the idea of worldbuilding with a mind toward playability.

Those are both great examples. Thank you.

I keep meaning to pick up Spire. I have BitD but actually prefer Scum and Villainy, mostly for genre preference reasons.