Welcome back to our series on World Building. Check out part 1 if you missed it as that has information relevant to part 2. So now we are on Day 2 of our world building, but before we go too far let's recap Day 1.
Day 1 was about getting started and picking a priority for the world; what would the campaign and world be about? We chose Style, aiming for a feel marrying the 13th Warrior and The Wild Bunch. After choosing our priority, we focused on the scope of the game. Keeping with our influences, we decided to keep things small and intimate. So a basic small kingdom and town, where some interesting people live, but no dense cosmology. Finally we wrote an opening for the campaign that the GM will read to the players.
Now on to Day 2...
With priorities and scope set, with an idea of how the game will kick off, now you can focus on some other important questions. All of which will be answered / informed by the choices on Day 1.
4. Do Others Exist? How Common are They?
While it may seem we are focusing on fantasy world building, that really is not the case. These questions work well for any genre or sub genre. Even LARP worlds. The question of others is a broad one as it could mean any number of things, from gods to aliens to dragons to ghosts. Obviously a lot depends on the setting and genre you picked. In fact, the question of others may very well finalize those decisions. 'Others' often play an important role in the game, if nothing else then adding a firm backdrop to work against. Never forget your Day 1 choices though: how will priority and scope affect the 'Others' question?
Our priority is Style, so how will others fit into that? A temple to the Hill Gods is mentioned so we could choose to have some kind of divine presence. For now "The Hill Gods" will suffice. To offset them we can note down Bog Lords, demi-gods that live in the swamps to the east. They won't play a major role right away, however. Should we have non-humans? I think we can have near humans, beast men who also live in the swamps or other fetid areas. I have always liked Fomorians as a name and we can put it in here. Again though, they won't be making show up yet, in keeping with our narrow scope.
Of course this means humans will carry the burden of protagonist and antagonist in the world. At least in this story.
5. Is there a singular evil?
A corollary to the question of Others: Is one of those Others a total dick? Is there a Venger or Sauron in the fold? Is there one person or tightly related group that provides some kind of high level world ending antagonism? It does not have to be just one person, it can be a group or a group lead by a powerful bad guy (or gal, a female world villain is badly underused). The point is they are on or mostly on the same page.
In our case I am going to say no. The forces of civilization and history will give rise to conflict, not some singular devil or group of devils. That is not to say someone or something could not rise later on, but for now let's just keep it tight and rely on humanity's bad choices for conflict.
6. Does the World Itself Play an Important role?
Is there a giant volcano? Is there something about the world that makes it part of the conflict even if the world itself is not alive? Weather or resources or the length of seasons can cause all sorts of trouble for players. For our world, I am going to choose a Long Summer. Droughts and wild chaotic storms are the norm, often in the same year. Cool temperatures are a rare thing, coming only once every fifteen or eighteen years. There are two growing seasons and harvests, Spring Harvest and Autumn Harvest. Hardy crops are planted mid summer. This will offer the world a lived in feel and a continual low level conflict that affects life. After all, if the swamps are drying up the Fomorians will go looking for water and the Bog Lords may seek to inundate new lands.
So to sum up today, we asked three questions about our world:
Are there others? Yes, but minor ones. Some divine and some near human.
Is there a single bad other? Nope, society will make its own conflicts.
Does the world offer conflict? Yes, the Long Summer is upon the world with no end in sight.
A Note on Genre And System
If these are not a priority, at what point should you choose? A lot depends on your answers to the other questions but I think we will finally answer that on Day 3. So stay tuned...
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Thursday, June 29, 2017
World Building - The First Day
Most of the time the logical advice to give to a game master looking to do some world building is to start from the beginning. Lay out the cosmos and the gods and the existential conflict inherent n the universe. That way, with such a foundation, you can lay brick after brick of detail, but is this the best way to build a world? Well I think that depends on the kind of world you want to build and in fact your world should not begin with a thought but instead with a (series of) question. So below I am going to spell out your Day 1 for World Building by offering up the questions that you want to ask yourself.
1. What is my purpose or reason for running this game? What is the important "IT" for running the game?
Why are you running the game in the first place? I assume through choice or getting the shortest straw that you are consenting to being the game master and world builder. With this in mind, what is the point of running THIS game and what do you want to get out of it?
It might be easier to answer the question if we prioritize aspects of the game and world.
Genre - Fantasy, Science Fiction, Horror, Modern, a combination
System - Class n Level, Skill based, Diceless, Narrative, FATE, Savage Worlds, etc...
Style - Traditional, Story heavy, GM-less, Minimalist
Fun - We just wanna roll dice twice a month for 3-5 hours
Story - Light, Heavy, Somber, Cynical
Deciding on the kind of game you are running and prioritizing some of the above should allow you to answer the question above. There may be more choices to consider, depending on your ideas/
2. Given your purpose, how big does the world need to be?
This is what I like to call Moorcock vs. Tolkien (or Jordan or Martin or Banks). Moorcok really only build what he needs in the moment, where the other authors here created huge worlds for their characters to inhabit. That sense of scope will help you narrow down what needs to come first. In Octavia Butler's Dawn, the protagonist starts out in a room. Just a single room. Of course there is a wider world, but the beginning of the story keeps you cooped up with the protagonist and her captors. This kind of intimate design calls for answering basic questions, but not elaborate creation myths. A little context for you as the game master is all that you need.
3. Given the scope of your game, what should the first thing you read or say to the players be?
Typically when starting a new campaign or even a one shot, my first question is "Did you guys bring me some Mt. Dew?". After that of course, I want to set the scene for the session (and campaign) with that opening monologue. When you have scope and purpose in mind, doing so is easy. So even before creating a central conflict, I jot down notes about the opening scene.
So let's put this all together. I am going to design a world as we go.
My purpose (other than as an example) is Style; I want to run a game that mixes 13th Warrior with The Wild Bunch. Given that, I want to keep the world relatively intimate to begin with. Starting small means I can add details as needed instead of creating tons of detail that might never be used. Of course I will likely need to do a great deal of improv along the way, but that is okay. I just means making notes.
Okay so our unnamed world has a purpose (Style) and is going to be small at first, just a little kingdom on a dusty plain or hidden amid rocky hills in a land similar to Medieval Spain. With that in mind, let's have a little introduction.
"A bell rings in the valley, mournful sounds that warn you to stay away. All along the dusty road move farmers and merchants, pulling mules or oxen up and down narrow paths. No one greets your arrival in the village beneath the king's keep, itself a small stone and wood affair. Guards stand sweltering in the unforgiving sun, wary of an armed traveler. You can see the bell now and the small stone chapel of the Hill Gods where the bell resides. Out front a procession of mostly women brush the dusty road with lilac as a body covered in linen is rolled into the courtyard. A man in brown robes waits with a torch aside a pyre."
Stay tuned for Day 2.
1. What is my purpose or reason for running this game? What is the important "IT" for running the game?
Why are you running the game in the first place? I assume through choice or getting the shortest straw that you are consenting to being the game master and world builder. With this in mind, what is the point of running THIS game and what do you want to get out of it?
It might be easier to answer the question if we prioritize aspects of the game and world.
Genre - Fantasy, Science Fiction, Horror, Modern, a combination
System - Class n Level, Skill based, Diceless, Narrative, FATE, Savage Worlds, etc...
Style - Traditional, Story heavy, GM-less, Minimalist
Fun - We just wanna roll dice twice a month for 3-5 hours
Story - Light, Heavy, Somber, Cynical
Deciding on the kind of game you are running and prioritizing some of the above should allow you to answer the question above. There may be more choices to consider, depending on your ideas/
2. Given your purpose, how big does the world need to be?
This is what I like to call Moorcock vs. Tolkien (or Jordan or Martin or Banks). Moorcok really only build what he needs in the moment, where the other authors here created huge worlds for their characters to inhabit. That sense of scope will help you narrow down what needs to come first. In Octavia Butler's Dawn, the protagonist starts out in a room. Just a single room. Of course there is a wider world, but the beginning of the story keeps you cooped up with the protagonist and her captors. This kind of intimate design calls for answering basic questions, but not elaborate creation myths. A little context for you as the game master is all that you need.
3. Given the scope of your game, what should the first thing you read or say to the players be?
Typically when starting a new campaign or even a one shot, my first question is "Did you guys bring me some Mt. Dew?". After that of course, I want to set the scene for the session (and campaign) with that opening monologue. When you have scope and purpose in mind, doing so is easy. So even before creating a central conflict, I jot down notes about the opening scene.
So let's put this all together. I am going to design a world as we go.
My purpose (other than as an example) is Style; I want to run a game that mixes 13th Warrior with The Wild Bunch. Given that, I want to keep the world relatively intimate to begin with. Starting small means I can add details as needed instead of creating tons of detail that might never be used. Of course I will likely need to do a great deal of improv along the way, but that is okay. I just means making notes.
Okay so our unnamed world has a purpose (Style) and is going to be small at first, just a little kingdom on a dusty plain or hidden amid rocky hills in a land similar to Medieval Spain. With that in mind, let's have a little introduction.
"A bell rings in the valley, mournful sounds that warn you to stay away. All along the dusty road move farmers and merchants, pulling mules or oxen up and down narrow paths. No one greets your arrival in the village beneath the king's keep, itself a small stone and wood affair. Guards stand sweltering in the unforgiving sun, wary of an armed traveler. You can see the bell now and the small stone chapel of the Hill Gods where the bell resides. Out front a procession of mostly women brush the dusty road with lilac as a body covered in linen is rolled into the courtyard. A man in brown robes waits with a torch aside a pyre."
Stay tuned for Day 2.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Consequences: Are they Inconsequential
There was an article the other day about Reward and Consequence over at EN_World. To say that the article may have missed its mark a bit would be accurate. The author was clearly feeling a level of frustration with newer games and gamers. I understand this, because the games and the people playing them have changed over the last forty years. Hell, I have changed as a gamer, specifically a role player, over the last thirty plus years. I started as a player but then got bitten by the GM bug and kind of never looked back. Thank goodness for some other great GMs over the years where I have been able to play in their worlds.
All that side, the article did not in my opinion really discuss rewards or consequences and certainly not what the author thought made good consequences. Again the author seemed frustrated and it can be difficult to be logical in that kind of mindset. Regardless of the general merit of the content, the idea of the articles is a great one. We should be discussing Reward & Consequence in our games.
So here was my salient comment:
Consequences are almost entirely in the hands of the GM and to a lesser extent, the players.
A rule can say, define how mechanically a little troll mutant can chop the arm off of your super bad hoplite knockoff, but the GM decides how that rule is applied to the situation. The player decides whether their player seeks a new arm or lives with the wound or retires and is replaced by a new character. This has always been the case even in the days of "Save or die", because role playing by it's mature allows us to bend or break the rules. In fact it practically demands that we do.
The challenge in the old days was to avoid the instant death trap, but that mentality has evolved over time. Now the game is more tactical or more narrative, deconstructing the rpg back down to its war game roots, it morphing it into a more improv style of game where stakes are defined by those involved, often collectively. That is not to say there hasn't been a change in players, there has, and that some of them have a hard time dealing with failure, they do. But you know what? This has always been the case, from day one. It may be time to recognize the various life forms that exist within the greater role playing paradigm as a benefit to gaming, not a detriment. Toxicity does exist but it is easily avoided.
At the end of the day if you run good games, people will come to play them.
All that side, the article did not in my opinion really discuss rewards or consequences and certainly not what the author thought made good consequences. Again the author seemed frustrated and it can be difficult to be logical in that kind of mindset. Regardless of the general merit of the content, the idea of the articles is a great one. We should be discussing Reward & Consequence in our games.
So here was my salient comment:
Consequences are almost entirely in the hands of the GM and to a lesser extent, the players.
A rule can say, define how mechanically a little troll mutant can chop the arm off of your super bad hoplite knockoff, but the GM decides how that rule is applied to the situation. The player decides whether their player seeks a new arm or lives with the wound or retires and is replaced by a new character. This has always been the case even in the days of "Save or die", because role playing by it's mature allows us to bend or break the rules. In fact it practically demands that we do.
The challenge in the old days was to avoid the instant death trap, but that mentality has evolved over time. Now the game is more tactical or more narrative, deconstructing the rpg back down to its war game roots, it morphing it into a more improv style of game where stakes are defined by those involved, often collectively. That is not to say there hasn't been a change in players, there has, and that some of them have a hard time dealing with failure, they do. But you know what? This has always been the case, from day one. It may be time to recognize the various life forms that exist within the greater role playing paradigm as a benefit to gaming, not a detriment. Toxicity does exist but it is easily avoided.
At the end of the day if you run good games, people will come to play them.
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
The Spectrum of Game Design
Ask anyone who speaks with me and I likely have at some time lavished them with a discussion of design of RPGs. Well, likely I bored them and they happily suffered through it because the opportunity were favorable. So aside from my dreams of world domination and my ten million novel ideas, it is safe to say I have a thought or two on game design. A recent article over at EN World dredged up these thoughts and I came to some conclusions.
I will offer my response to the article as it appears over at EN World and then expand on it.
A few short thoughts.
RPG Game design and by extension some computer and "board" game design are a reaction to the point of origin. That would be the strange singularity where Kriegspiel melded into rpg (technically this happened twice and or was a longer process than we think). All role playing games even the first are a blue shift or red shift in reaction to that point of origin. In my mind the PoO is not a specific game, but a specific question needing answered:
"Why do I need to make an rpg?"
In a world of needs and wants, with a million ways a Gygax or Arneson or Stafford or St. Andre might decide what they want, the "need" to make an rpg, whether conscious or unconscious, was imperative. The first time I designed a game was when I was 10. The game (which I am reworking into a modern OSR) was a reaction to D&D. The first draft done I toyed with it and I answered the question "Why did I need to make this?" with the answer "I didn't". The reason? The Red Shift from D&D was not significant enough. It did not meet any real needs.
We get so caught up in mechanics and story and to dice or not to dice, that we sometimes forget to answer that basic question: Why do I need to make this game? Profit? A need in the greater community? I have my own vision or version? What makes this game different from just some house rules?
Additionally I think there is a desire in gamers and game designers to impose a certain amount of order on their games, with some wanting more and some less (again another spectrum) through probability or Improv (or a combination of both). This manifests itself in another question: "What would I have done, if...?" The question pertaining to other stories we hear and our reaction to them and whether they ended the "right" way.
Just my thoughts.
The Point of Origin
Young children, mostly boys but girls as well, have been playing with toy soldiers for a long time. Branwell Bronte' and his sister Charlotte used to create elaborate stories and role playing games that they put on as plays (I am guessing?). Many consider this to be the first move from make believe to actual rpg. One hundred and fifty odd years later Gygax, Arneson, and Stafford were doing the same thing. That moment when the wargamer or board gamer became (becomes) the role player is a seminal moment for modern society. While not every action or reaction to role playing games has played a role in the development of the modern American / European it is safe to say the development of RPGs has been a significant influence.
Within role playing game design itself, most games are reactions to the point of origin, by their own admission. To suggest it isn't is a bit of arrogance that is unnecessary; this is how revolution and evolution work. As more and more games became public knowledge* / were published the spectrum of possible games were created. I suspect the spectrum is a finite one, but am not enough of an expert on probability to know for sure. In any case we now judge games not just on their merit but on whether they are Red Shifting (heading away) or Blue Shifting (heading towards) the point of origin. This plays an important part in our playing, liking, and giving franchise to a new rpg.
Order & Chaos
What would you have done if you were Gandolf? What would you have done if you were Larry Underwood or Stu Redman? What if, what if, what if? As readers and viewers, as the audience of myth and story, we often take a personal role in our favorites. We are sure that, had we been there, things would have turned out better. How many people are yelling at their TV or their book, telling Ned Stark to ying instead of yang? This is part of why we role play.
Role playing is based on make believe but it is not entirely governed by those unspoken sets of rules. Make believe is mostly improv, where people sometimes say no but generally say yes. Even though we try and take possession of those stories or create our own, we want to keep a certain degree of order in the process, a certain bit of fair play. So we have probability, for which we use dice. The rule of dice replaces the rule of "yes" in improv play, though it could also be said that "yes, you can try" replaces a simple "yes".
An action may fail or succeed. How much we want to create the illusion of choice and how difficult we make the challenges help place us on the various spectrum. The Universe of RPGs is amorphous and has many variables and a spectrum for each set of variables.
Why it Matters
Anyone can create a rpg and even an rpg that people want to play. They might even pay for it. However, our best creations come out of some kind of understanding of our need to to make the game in the first place and our reaction to the Point of Origin. Are we Red Shifting or Blue Shifting? Once we have those answers, we can create a coherent game based on our needs.
I will offer my response to the article as it appears over at EN World and then expand on it.
A few short thoughts.
RPG Game design and by extension some computer and "board" game design are a reaction to the point of origin. That would be the strange singularity where Kriegspiel melded into rpg (technically this happened twice and or was a longer process than we think). All role playing games even the first are a blue shift or red shift in reaction to that point of origin. In my mind the PoO is not a specific game, but a specific question needing answered:
"Why do I need to make an rpg?"
In a world of needs and wants, with a million ways a Gygax or Arneson or Stafford or St. Andre might decide what they want, the "need" to make an rpg, whether conscious or unconscious, was imperative. The first time I designed a game was when I was 10. The game (which I am reworking into a modern OSR) was a reaction to D&D. The first draft done I toyed with it and I answered the question "Why did I need to make this?" with the answer "I didn't". The reason? The Red Shift from D&D was not significant enough. It did not meet any real needs.
We get so caught up in mechanics and story and to dice or not to dice, that we sometimes forget to answer that basic question: Why do I need to make this game? Profit? A need in the greater community? I have my own vision or version? What makes this game different from just some house rules?
Additionally I think there is a desire in gamers and game designers to impose a certain amount of order on their games, with some wanting more and some less (again another spectrum) through probability or Improv (or a combination of both). This manifests itself in another question: "What would I have done, if...?" The question pertaining to other stories we hear and our reaction to them and whether they ended the "right" way.
Just my thoughts.
The Point of Origin
Young children, mostly boys but girls as well, have been playing with toy soldiers for a long time. Branwell Bronte' and his sister Charlotte used to create elaborate stories and role playing games that they put on as plays (I am guessing?). Many consider this to be the first move from make believe to actual rpg. One hundred and fifty odd years later Gygax, Arneson, and Stafford were doing the same thing. That moment when the wargamer or board gamer became (becomes) the role player is a seminal moment for modern society. While not every action or reaction to role playing games has played a role in the development of the modern American / European it is safe to say the development of RPGs has been a significant influence.
Within role playing game design itself, most games are reactions to the point of origin, by their own admission. To suggest it isn't is a bit of arrogance that is unnecessary; this is how revolution and evolution work. As more and more games became public knowledge* / were published the spectrum of possible games were created. I suspect the spectrum is a finite one, but am not enough of an expert on probability to know for sure. In any case we now judge games not just on their merit but on whether they are Red Shifting (heading away) or Blue Shifting (heading towards) the point of origin. This plays an important part in our playing, liking, and giving franchise to a new rpg.
Order & Chaos
What would you have done if you were Gandolf? What would you have done if you were Larry Underwood or Stu Redman? What if, what if, what if? As readers and viewers, as the audience of myth and story, we often take a personal role in our favorites. We are sure that, had we been there, things would have turned out better. How many people are yelling at their TV or their book, telling Ned Stark to ying instead of yang? This is part of why we role play.
Role playing is based on make believe but it is not entirely governed by those unspoken sets of rules. Make believe is mostly improv, where people sometimes say no but generally say yes. Even though we try and take possession of those stories or create our own, we want to keep a certain degree of order in the process, a certain bit of fair play. So we have probability, for which we use dice. The rule of dice replaces the rule of "yes" in improv play, though it could also be said that "yes, you can try" replaces a simple "yes".
An action may fail or succeed. How much we want to create the illusion of choice and how difficult we make the challenges help place us on the various spectrum. The Universe of RPGs is amorphous and has many variables and a spectrum for each set of variables.
Why it Matters
Anyone can create a rpg and even an rpg that people want to play. They might even pay for it. However, our best creations come out of some kind of understanding of our need to to make the game in the first place and our reaction to the Point of Origin. Are we Red Shifting or Blue Shifting? Once we have those answers, we can create a coherent game based on our needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)