Slightly unpopular opinion: All official lore is crap and should be generally ignored. (Even the stuff I kind of like) If I want to play in a world where what I can do is limited by the generic, inoffensive, middle-of-the-road, crowd-pleasing writers at some corporation I’ll just play a AAA video game. The ability to be participatory in the creation and evolution of the in-game world is what makes TTRPGs different from consumer media. Why would you give that part up, but still leave yourself with all the cognitive load?
This is probably why Greg Stafford, the guy most responsible for Runequest and Glorantha’s deep and wide lore came up with his sort of prime directive: “Your Glorantha Will Vary”. He presented his version of the lore but wanted people to re-write it to their hearts’ content.
There was a bit too much of it, but that actually was the reason I included the ‘even the ones I like’ part. Old WoD didn’t pull its punches, and generally was not middle-of-the-road.
I disagree. I think having a base to work from is helpful, both to players and DMs.
For example I don’t want to create a pantheon of gods. I might want to create a few unique gods within my setting, and if they conflict I’ll change some rules accordingly, but I want something to build off of. Similarly if a player wants to create a paladin or cleric they can just pull from the standard list.
Also if the official lore is fun, it’s more fun to build off of. I’ll enjoy reading it more and I’ll enjoy using it.
Absolutely agree. I set a game in the real(ish) world once, so it was a setting where everyone knew the base “lore.” It was so nice! I could reference things, name-drop countries, and introduce old grudges without having to exposition it all. People just got things. We’ve since done enough games on the sword coast that that works too, now.
Slightly surprised I didn’t get more disagreement.
A prebuilt system has one benefit: the players and DM come to the table with a shared set of expectations. This is crucial for things like adventurer’s league, where the players are all strangers, more or less engaging in a tournament without winners, each using the others to get their RPG rocks off, and can be useful to skip the mechanical design level of play-making. It also makes sense for a corporation to try to hit that lowest common denominator to maximise their audience.
However, I maintain, if no one at the table is creative enough to want to world-build beyond that, they might as well all just stick with consumer media. Those who don’t feel the drive to create aren’t suited to DMing, and a table without a DM is a hetero orgy without a woman.
Sounds like you have a table where the worldbuilding has a big place. That’s awesome but I really feel that worldbuilding is only one, arguably secondary, aspect of RPGs and not even the only one where creativity expresses itself.
Even if we stay focused on the world building aspect of the game, when playing in a pre-defined setting, you can still find plenty of uses for your creativity to fill the gaps that will present themselves as your game unfolds (that is if you’re not playing at a table full of FR nerds that read every single novel and campaign setting out there several times over).
Plus, many come to a point in life where it’s complicated to spend more than a few hours each week on TTRPGs. I’d rather spend time fleshing out characters, scenes and encounters than coming up with a pantheon of gods, most of whom will never come up in game. Sure, worldbuilding doesn’t have to imply heaps of prep ; you can improvise a lot on the spot. But I’ve already got enough shit to track and remember before/during/after game time.
Personally, I also feel much more confortable GMing in a world that’s well fleshed out. Sure, I can do it myself but it will simply take me down way too many rabbit holes and will proabably end up with me delaying sessions because I was too busy writing the grand history of that neighborhing kingdom the PCs probably won’t visit rather than doing proper prep.
Not to mention that there is a lot of creativity to be expressed when you have actual constraints, constraints like an existing world for example. And if that world is too bland or consensual to my taste I’m always free to spice it up as I please, because you know, creativity.
Certainly, RPGs are first and foremost a game of creativity and imagination but I don’t think that the want to worldbuild is, on its own, a really good metric of how creative you are, nor that prefering pre-defined settings makes people wholly unworthy of the hobby.
And I want to add that if the fact that no women showed up at your hetero orgy ruined it for you, I think it’s because you clearly haven’t been creative enough.
Succinctly, I would say any GM who says ‘I don’t want to spend my time thinking about the in-game world’ is just someone who would be happier as a player but is taking one for the team. In the metaphor, he’s the guy at the orgy squeezing a fleshlight between his thighs and wearing a wig so his buddies can pretend. He’s trying to be creative with what’s lying around. However, everyone would be happier if he wasn’t in that position. They’re all just too desperate to go elsewhere. I mean, it’s really nice of the guy to do that for his friends, but it’s not really what they showed up for.
Slightly unpopular opinion: All official lore is crap and should be generally ignored. (Even the stuff I kind of like) If I want to play in a world where what I can do is limited by the generic, inoffensive, middle-of-the-road, crowd-pleasing writers at some corporation I’ll just play a AAA video game. The ability to be participatory in the creation and evolution of the in-game world is what makes TTRPGs different from consumer media. Why would you give that part up, but still leave yourself with all the cognitive load?
This is probably why Greg Stafford, the guy most responsible for Runequest and Glorantha’s deep and wide lore came up with his sort of prime directive: “Your Glorantha Will Vary”. He presented his version of the lore but wanted people to re-write it to their hearts’ content.
Old world of darkness lore slapped though
There was a bit too much of it, but that actually was the reason I included the ‘even the ones I like’ part. Old WoD didn’t pull its punches, and generally was not middle-of-the-road.
Very strong agree on this.
I disagree. I think having a base to work from is helpful, both to players and DMs.
For example I don’t want to create a pantheon of gods. I might want to create a few unique gods within my setting, and if they conflict I’ll change some rules accordingly, but I want something to build off of. Similarly if a player wants to create a paladin or cleric they can just pull from the standard list.
Also if the official lore is fun, it’s more fun to build off of. I’ll enjoy reading it more and I’ll enjoy using it.
Absolutely agree. I set a game in the real(ish) world once, so it was a setting where everyone knew the base “lore.” It was so nice! I could reference things, name-drop countries, and introduce old grudges without having to exposition it all. People just got things. We’ve since done enough games on the sword coast that that works too, now.
Slightly surprised I didn’t get more disagreement.
A prebuilt system has one benefit: the players and DM come to the table with a shared set of expectations. This is crucial for things like adventurer’s league, where the players are all strangers, more or less engaging in a tournament without winners, each using the others to get their RPG rocks off, and can be useful to skip the mechanical design level of play-making. It also makes sense for a corporation to try to hit that lowest common denominator to maximise their audience.
However, I maintain, if no one at the table is creative enough to want to world-build beyond that, they might as well all just stick with consumer media. Those who don’t feel the drive to create aren’t suited to DMing, and a table without a DM is a hetero orgy without a woman.
Sounds like you have a table where the worldbuilding has a big place. That’s awesome but I really feel that worldbuilding is only one, arguably secondary, aspect of RPGs and not even the only one where creativity expresses itself.
Even if we stay focused on the world building aspect of the game, when playing in a pre-defined setting, you can still find plenty of uses for your creativity to fill the gaps that will present themselves as your game unfolds (that is if you’re not playing at a table full of FR nerds that read every single novel and campaign setting out there several times over).
Plus, many come to a point in life where it’s complicated to spend more than a few hours each week on TTRPGs. I’d rather spend time fleshing out characters, scenes and encounters than coming up with a pantheon of gods, most of whom will never come up in game. Sure, worldbuilding doesn’t have to imply heaps of prep ; you can improvise a lot on the spot. But I’ve already got enough shit to track and remember before/during/after game time.
Personally, I also feel much more confortable GMing in a world that’s well fleshed out. Sure, I can do it myself but it will simply take me down way too many rabbit holes and will proabably end up with me delaying sessions because I was too busy writing the grand history of that neighborhing kingdom the PCs probably won’t visit rather than doing proper prep.
Not to mention that there is a lot of creativity to be expressed when you have actual constraints, constraints like an existing world for example. And if that world is too bland or consensual to my taste I’m always free to spice it up as I please, because you know, creativity.
Certainly, RPGs are first and foremost a game of creativity and imagination but I don’t think that the want to worldbuild is, on its own, a really good metric of how creative you are, nor that prefering pre-defined settings makes people wholly unworthy of the hobby.
And I want to add that if the fact that no women showed up at your hetero orgy ruined it for you, I think it’s because you clearly haven’t been creative enough.
Succinctly, I would say any GM who says ‘I don’t want to spend my time thinking about the in-game world’ is just someone who would be happier as a player but is taking one for the team. In the metaphor, he’s the guy at the orgy squeezing a fleshlight between his thighs and wearing a wig so his buddies can pretend. He’s trying to be creative with what’s lying around. However, everyone would be happier if he wasn’t in that position. They’re all just too desperate to go elsewhere. I mean, it’s really nice of the guy to do that for his friends, but it’s not really what they showed up for.