A few game sessions ago, I was struggling with how to continue the campaign after the players ran through Death Frost Doom. I thought that I had to think up every possible scenario that they would choose to deal with the consequences of their actions, and it kind of freaked me out and paralyzed me as a GM. They (the players) kept pestering me to continue the campaign, so I threw up my hands, wrote 5 bullet pointed sentences, and the game continued in what they all said was awesome and amazing.

What I took from this was that planning for every possible eventuality is fruitless, stressful, and not fun.

I also took from it that letting the players discover the game world was a lot easier and fun than me designing it.

What I mean by that (I'm five Christmas Ales in right now, so please forgive me), is that I stopped attempting to define and map the game world, and instead let the players go where ever they wanted.

In this case, they wanted to escape the area and head to the nearest big city.

So on the fly I made up a city (using Vornheim) and that was that.

There is no world map. There is no lunar calendar. There is no tectonic plate system. There is no system of weather patterns. All of which I was told are "necessary" to make a game world.

The point being; less is more.

By creating less detail in the gigantic background that no one cares about, I can put more emphasis on the here and now, while giving the players more, and I hate this term, agency.

I'm spending more time on picking up on what the players want, rather than forcing them to adhere to a preconceived timeline or geographic map. In layman's terms; less railroad, more explore.

Certain things are going on in the background, of course. Every event put into motion since the first session is still happening. And as the players explore the world, I keep track of where they've been and the geographic relations between those places.

But, I'm making the world backwards from how I'm "supposed" to make it. I'm not planning ahead beyond the next adventure. Even then, I'm hardly even planning the next adventure, just planning off whatever hook they go for on the current adventure.

And the players don't care and don't notice. And my job is a lot easier and more fun this way.

I'm the first to admit that this won't work for everyone, maybe even most people. But for me it does. I can't draw a map to save my life. I know that anything I plan will be fucked because the players will inevitably do something completely the opposite of what I plan. And world building, to me, is boring and time consuming.

I don't even have a name for the planet, simply because no one has ever bothered to ask. When/if they do, I'll just make something up on the spot.

Is this gonzo world building?

Well, that could have been worse. Still, note to self: remember to write drunk thoughts down, and go over them the next day before posting to the forum.

I don't know whether it's "gonzo" but that's certainly sounds a lot like what I do. Or rather, used to do; I admit that my insecurity at my lack of time for prep increasingly drives me towards published settings and adventures, but (say) for the first session of a D&D campaign, I would consider enough prep:

• A 30 x 30 6-mile-hex map of the starting area.
• A vague outline of the world beyond the borders of the map.
• Basic assumptions on government, law, society, mores and day-to-day life (mostly drawn from historical analogues, possibly filtered through pop culture, depending on what sort of campaign we're running)
• A vague idea of what language sounds like, the better to pick PC and NPC names from (again, I usually draw from existing languages. Google Translator is your friend)

I respect and even admire the sort of effort that goes into climate systems, plate tectonics and conlangs, but in my experience, laying down excessive detail on world-building one ends up constraining oneself, or even building traps -- you forget a detail and the inconsistency shows.

In my experience, and this is by no means a critique of detailed world-building (which not only can be leveraged for advantage by an enterprising GM, but also constitutes a hobby in and of itself), making a world come alive at the game table is less about what you jot down or sketch up in your notebooks, and more about the imagery you conjure when you're actually running it.

In a Medieval metropolis, I enjoy describing the dark, narrow alleways and reeking sewage of the streets giving way to the hustle and bustle of traders, hawkers and performers, and the smell of fresh produce and grilled meat as one approaches the market. As they enter an inn, the smells of rotting wood, stale beer and vomit contrasts with the pot roast by the fire, while the dim, tangential light casts shadows on everyone's faces and makes even homely townsfolk and sassy serving wenches look sinister.

I avoid long-winded descriptions like the plague, but I've found that inserting two to three distinct visual cues, sounds and smells (especially smells) can be very, very evocative and do a lot towards immersion.

It's not "gonzo"*.  It's relaxed.  It's casual.  It's improvised.  It's play-focused.  It's exploratory in nature and full of surprises for all players, including the GM.   It requires a confident GM and players who trust that GM, and the playstyle will reinforce those qualities (confidence, trust).

Welcome to the other side, everloss.  There's no going back.



(* I've gotten really tired of the use of the word 'gonzo' in describing rpg stuff, especially when it's shorthand for "a lazy pile of laser-dinosaurs")

Sounds a lot more fun to develop a world that way than going in knowing what every place is called and where exactly it is in relation to everywhere else(its one of the reasons i try to avoid learning too much about mmorpg worlds before i start playing so makes sense to do the same in tabletop), think i may have to grab the vornheim book for help with my up coming 5e game which i kinda plan to run in a similar way

Quote from: VectorSigma;801160It's not "gonzo"*.  It's relaxed.  It's casual.  It's improvised.  It's play-focused.  It's exploratory in nature and full of surprises for all players, including the GM.   It requires a confident GM and players who trust that GM, and the playstyle will reinforce those qualities (confidence, trust).

Welcome to the other side, everloss.  There's no going back.



(* I've gotten really tired of the use of the word 'gonzo' in describing rpg stuff, especially when it's shorthand for "a lazy pile of laser-dinosaurs")

Actually, this is how I did things when I was younger, and i don't have any kimd of philosophical problem with it, but I like to draw maps, and I have two anthro degrees, so making a semi- detailed setting is part of the fun for me. My problem with the other style is practical, really, I end up painting myself in to a corner and losing interest. However, try as I might, I can't wrap my head around using a published module or setting. It just looks (and the time I tried it feels) like more work to me.

I have never liked the term gonzo, and it is used to describe the junk I make just about all the time.

Quote from: Gib;801170Actually, this is how I did things when I was younger, and i don't have any kimd of philosophical problem with it, but I like to draw maps, and I have two anthro degrees, so making a semi- detailed setting is part of the fun for me. My problem with the other style is practical, really, I end up painting myself in to a corner and losing interest. However, try as I might, I can't wrap my head around using a published module or setting. It just looks (and the time I tried it feels) like more work to me.

I have never liked the term gonzo, and it is used to describe the junk I make just about all the time.

I did the same - again, when I was younger and a) had the time to mess around with that stuff, and b) secretly hoped my players would recognize my genius (or whatever the hell fifteen-year-olds think).  I like the maps and the anthro and the thought-experiments and all of that, but I am no longer under any illusions that all of that stuff inherently makes a game better or that any player actually gives two shits about it.  The painting-self-into-corner thing is traumatic, absolutely.

The misapplication and spread of 'gonzo' is totally worth a bitch session over beers or something.  Maybe a thread.  Meh.  That ship has sailed.

I have one player who loves all that shit, especially the maps and drawings.

Actually we're starting back up soon, and I got rid of the other two guys. I have known them both for decades, but fuck, one wanted to undermine me at every turn (so he could run his shitty infinite ninja railroad instead, which no one wanted to play) and the other had to be told everything twice or three times, because high/drunk*. Both, of course, were habitually late as well.
I don't expect the players to recognize my genius, or anything, but I tire pretty quickly of those that seem to think having me run the game for them is some sort of inalienable right. It is weird when you know people for 20 years and they don't grow up even a little.

*lest the sperging puritans get the wrong idea, I have no general problem with getting a buzz on during the game, but some can't handle it and should not.

Quote from: Gib;801194I have one player who loves all that shit, especially the maps and drawings.

Sounds like you kept the right player, Gib.  Rock on, and best of luck with it.

I don't like the term, gonzo, either, but I couldn't think of a better way to put it at the time.

Gonzo, to me, means putting yourself in the story. That's how it was described the first time I ever heard the term, in relation to journalism. It's definitely been overused to the point that it's lost its value though.

Anyway, I used to draw maps and plan out entire worlds and universes back when I was young. But that hasn't appealed to me in years. What used to be fun and easy has become frustrating and difficult.

I admire people who have the patience to do that. I'm in awe of that, actually. In Gib's thread, I said I wanted to play in his game world more than anything, and I wasn't kidding.