TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: JesterRaiin on March 09, 2016, 11:45:31 AM

Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: JesterRaiin on March 09, 2016, 11:45:31 AM
There's this event in one of Roger Zelazny's book, where the protagonist travels to entirely different reality, gathers some precious gemstones, then comes back to the reality he came from and pays with said gemstones for some rare artifact. Details aren't important here, but it got me thinking...

I'm not sure whether "multi-universe" is the proper way to describe settings I have in mind, but let's assume that all settings where PCs might travel to another reality/dimension/cosmos/universe qualify.

For example: Amber, Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, The Strange, Call of Cthulhu and arguably D&D/Pathfinder qualify, but Firefly, Myriad Song, Star Wars (unless someone retconned alternative universes into the franchise), Space 1889 or Blue Planet don't, because everything what happens there happens in same "cosmos", same "universe".

The question is: do you know groups that invested much effort into making another "universe" more complex than, let's say, a continent?

Come to think about it, each time PCs switch the reality, they are in entirely different cosmos, with plenty of planets, galaxies (there are exceptions, some tiny domain-world or something, but they aren't the most important here), probably myriads of races and cultures with their own histories and goals.

I mean, sure, I happened to meet players and GMs alike who breathed enough life into a single castle/stronghold or a city, so that it became a separate setting on its own, or have seen to it, that every planet in their stellar system(s) were noticeably different from each other. However, I've just realized that I've never seen a group that seriously expanded alternative realities?

Usually, unless it was a campaign centered around "adventures in the other place" (some Planescape adventures, or Heart of the Winter campaign for PFRPG are good examples of what I'm talking about) everyone treated these other "worlds" as a place to visit sporadically, made some business there, did some quick side-quest, hide before the law (or other hunters), but no more than that.

Just a quick trip to Bahamas and back, that's all.

What's your experience?
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: Skarg on March 09, 2016, 12:52:11 PM
Yes, but of course it multiplies the work, the more places that are accessible at once, unless your GM isn't into doing a lot of work on his settings.

I've run and seen run multiple continents, multiple time periods on the same set of continent, faerie realms that are their own place and that also tend to have you arrive in a different time period when you return from it, sci fi games with multiple mapped planets, travel between parallel universes and parallel fate paths for the same universe, and teleportation and magic or technological portals between distant places or worlds.

I'd also throw in just situation changes that transform what the players have to deal with, so also games where the players' situations and concerns change drastically: major natural disasters (floods, wars, zombies, plagues, etc) transforming a world, or the players being enslaved, or joining an army, or getting lost or stranded in the wilderness, or becoming nobles, or involved in conspiracies or feuds, or even changing professions - all of these things transform the world and the gameplay, and the content the GM needs to come up with and provide a consistent environment for, whether they're charting everything out, rolling it up, channeling it from the GM powers, or whatever.

That is, I'd say all of the above is really about how much stuff there is in the gameworld for players to interact with, and how detailed and consistent it is, and how much ability the players have to rapidly switch contexts and gain access to other content, or to isolate themselves from content.

So not just world-hopping opportunities (portals, spells, spaceships, time machines), but ability to travel (foot or horse, maps, ships, flying carpets, planes, hostile borders or customs officials, parole conditions), and also skill sets or interests that the GM is willing to support, and conditions that require the players to focus on certain things and/or stay in limited places.

A big consideration for me is whether I'm going to get into a situation where the players are liable to ignore a large amount of prepared material and go somewhere and/or do something else and want me to prepare that.
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: Spinachcat on March 11, 2016, 08:52:09 PM
Quote from: JesterRaiin;884170
Just a quick trip to Bahamas and back, that's all.


That's mostly my experience. The only time the "Bahamas" becomes more fleshed out is when it becomes the focus of the campaign and the PCs decide to spend more time there.

It's one of the reasons I prefer to ignore science have "desert world", "water world", "smog world", etc so the PCs have a very defined sense of Where is Where.
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: Daddy Warpig on March 12, 2016, 04:14:18 AM
The difficulty is distinction: distinguishing one part of the setting from another.

How is Moonshae different from Thay; how is Tir Tairngire different from Seattle; how is The City of Lost Angeles different from The City of Gloom?
Different parts of a setting have to feel different, have different laws and customs and NPCs and scenery and monsters and technology and…

Multi-world / plane / cosm settings can be treated exactly the same as single-world ones, because it doesn't matter if the sub-setting is another city, another country, another continent, or another plane, the same guidelines for building variety and detail into sub-settings hold for all. A city is a country is a continent is a plane.

Each individual sub-setting has to work by itself, but also has to function within the game as a whole. And the amount of work you have to put in on each depends on how long the players will be vacationing there.

In a 100-setting game, where players can be expected to spend one session (if that) in one sub-setting, very little effort has to be put into each. In a 10-setting game, players will probably spend much more time in each sub-setting, so each needs more detail.

Never put in work you don't have to, but always put in the work you need to. And remember that too much detail is hard to remember, which makes it hard for players and you to distinguish between various sub-settings, which defeats the point of making the details in the first place!
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: nDervish on March 12, 2016, 06:42:11 AM
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;884712
Multi-world / plane / cosm settings can be treated exactly the same as single-world ones, because it doesn't matter if the sub-setting is another city, another country, another continent, or another plane, the same rules hold for all. A city is a country is a continent is a plane.


Not quite true.  If you go to another plane/cosm, the same rules don't necessarily hold.  Magic can work on one plane, guns on another, both on a third, and neither on a fourth.  You don't get those kinds of changes just by going to a different city/country/continent.  (Unless you're playing Torg.  But, then, if you are playing Torg and the laws of physics change from city to city, it's because the cities are within different cosms, even though they're on the same planet...)
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: Daddy Warpig on March 12, 2016, 12:49:40 PM
Quote from: nDervish;884720
Magic can work on one plane, guns on another, both on a third, and neither on a fourth.  You don't get those kinds of changes just by going to a different city/country/continent.


Shadowrun. Forgotten Realms. Rifts. Deadlands. Vampire. etc etc.

Different cities, same plane / planet, different magic. (It's the *book effect, no?)

And different planes can have the same magic and physics.

Sub-settings are sub-settings, whether city, country, continent, or plane. The same guidelines for building variety and detail into sub-settings hold for all.
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: soltakss on March 12, 2016, 01:40:57 PM
I don't often use different planes in my games, but when I do it's a quick in-out.

The PCs go to/are sent to another plane, they explore it quickly and return with whatever they came for. Depending on how long they take to explore they could be there for a single session or several sessions, but I treat it in the same way as if they had gone to a distant city or land for an adventure.

Different magic/physics laws are just handled as flavour for the place.

If the PCs stay there for an extended time then it gets fleshed out more and more as they explore. Just the same as anywhere else.
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: nDervish on March 13, 2016, 07:03:18 AM
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;884780
Shadowrun. Forgotten Realms. Rifts. Deadlands. Vampire. etc etc.

Different cities, same plane / planet, different magic. (It's the *book effect, no?)


Different magic may be common in different areas of a single reality, but that's not quite the same thing as the magic not working in the other place.  "We use Glocks here instead of Smith & Wesson (but your S&W still works, it's just really out of place)" vs. "you pull the trigger and it just goes 'click' because gunpowder doesn't combust here".

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;884780

And different planes can have the same magic and physics.


I never said that changing the rules is necessary when moving from one reality to another, only that it's possible.
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: JesterRaiin on March 13, 2016, 01:57:06 PM
Just FYI, I'm monitoring this thread and I'm very grateful for all the input, no matter how big or small.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;884712
Never put in work you don't have to, but always put in the work you need to.


That's very elegant thing to say. Is it some sort of "official" saying, or your own creation? If the former, then may I ask you where does it come from?
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: Omega on March 13, 2016, 02:12:12 PM
As noted above. Dont flesh out a whole new planet unless you know the PCs are going to be exploring a whole new planet. More often they will visit one locale, maybe two and then head home, possibly seeing only a single hex of the whole world in that time.

Its just like you do not flesh out a whole campaign planet if you dont need to.

Such as knowing the players or the adventure will keep them to one kingdom. Or even one city.

Same goes with space travel settings. Flesh out enough to make the landing site alive and if you need more you can expand.
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: Daddy Warpig on March 13, 2016, 05:52:37 PM
Quote from: JesterRaiin;884973
That's very elegant thing to say. Is it some sort of "official" saying, or your own creation? If the former, then may I ask you where does it come from?


Thank you. I made it up for that post.

Fruits of 18 intensive months of Twittering. Teaches pith.
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: crkrueger on March 13, 2016, 07:13:27 PM
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;885001
18 intensive months of Twittering.


You poor, mad bastard. :D
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: JesterRaiin on March 14, 2016, 08:22:34 AM
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;885001
Thank you. I made it up for that post.

Fruits of 18 intensive months of Twittering. Teaches pith.


...and people insist that nothing good comes from Internet addiction. :D
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: Bren on March 14, 2016, 06:57:29 PM
Quote from: Omega;884974
As noted above. Dont flesh out a whole new planet unless you know the PCs are going to be exploring a whole new planet.
While this is not a bad rule of thumb, I like creating stuff. As long as the creation itself is fun I don't get too exercised if the players don't spend any time there. And there is almost always the possibility of a next time.
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: Spinachcat on March 14, 2016, 07:03:41 PM
I overprepare (because I enjoy the world building process), but then cannibalize unused ideas for other games / sessions.

I don't think much is wasted, just shelved for later. Sometimes years later.
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: Bren on March 16, 2016, 07:45:03 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;885125
I overprepare (because I enjoy the world building process), but then cannibalize unused ideas for other games / sessions.

I don't think much is wasted, just shelved for later. Sometimes years later.
Or lifetimes. I need more lifetimes.
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: RPGPundit on March 22, 2016, 05:18:31 AM
In my Amber games, players would routinely end up with 'favorite realities', which they would want very detailed.  Some of these were worlds they created/'bought' themselves, and thus could detail for themselves.  On at least a couple of occasions, I had players make 30-50 page notes about said worlds.
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: JesterRaiin on March 22, 2016, 06:01:46 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;886561
In my Amber games, players would routinely end up with 'favorite realities', which they would want very detailed.  Some of these were worlds they created/'bought' themselves, and thus could detail for themselves.  On at least a couple of occasions, I had players make 30-50 page notes about said worlds.


A question! How much of what said players invented came into actual play? I'm ok with little/most distinction, or something along the lines.
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: AsenRG on March 23, 2016, 02:55:19 PM
Quote from: JesterRaiin;884170
There's this event in one of Roger Zelazny's book, where the protagonist travels to entirely different reality, gathers some precious gemstones, then comes back to the reality he came from and pays with said gemstones for some rare artifact. Details aren't important here, but it got me thinking...

I'm not sure whether "multi-universe" is the proper way to describe settings I have in mind, but let's assume that all settings where PCs might travel to another reality/dimension/cosmos/universe qualify.

For example: Amber, Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, The Strange, Call of Cthulhu and arguably D&D/Pathfinder qualify, but Firefly, Myriad Song, Star Wars (unless someone retconned alternative universes into the franchise), Space 1889 or Blue Planet don't, because everything what happens there happens in same "cosmos", same "universe".

The question is: do you know groups that invested much effort into making another "universe" more complex than, let's say, a continent?

Come to think about it, each time PCs switch the reality, they are in entirely different cosmos, with plenty of planets, galaxies (there are exceptions, some tiny domain-world or something, but they aren't the most important here), probably myriads of races and cultures with their own histories and goals.

I mean, sure, I happened to meet players and GMs alike who breathed enough life into a single castle/stronghold or a city, so that it became a separate setting on its own, or have seen to it, that every planet in their stellar system(s) were noticeably different from each other. However, I've just realized that I've never seen a group that seriously expanded alternative realities?

Usually, unless it was a campaign centered around "adventures in the other place" (some Planescape adventures, or Heart of the Winter campaign for PFRPG are good examples of what I'm talking about) everyone treated these other "worlds" as a place to visit sporadically, made some business there, did some quick side-quest, hide before the law (or other hunters), but no more than that.

Just a quick trip to Bahamas and back, that's all.

What's your experience?

I prefer "multiverse", and I happen to be running a game like that now:).

And it's really simple to get as much depth as you wish;). I've just slotted all the settings that I've ever liked after having played, run, or read them:D!
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: RPGPundit on March 25, 2016, 07:13:50 AM
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886565
A question! How much of what said players invented came into actual play? I'm ok with little/most distinction, or something along the lines.


Well, it varies. In most cases more than what you'd expect, because the players made it their character's home base and got really involved in events there. And of course, NPCs who wanted to manipulate or threaten the PC in some way would also end up getting involved.  This worked just like it really ought to work in an Amber game, in other words.

But of course, the dudes who wrote 30-50 page 'sourcebooks' for their own worlds didn't see MOST of that in actual play. I think they really didn't do it for that reason, anyways.
Title: The complexity of worlds in multi-world settings.
Post by: DavetheLost on March 27, 2016, 09:23:14 AM
I played a lot of plane hopping Stormbringer adventures. Most of the other planes were detailed very loosely. Sort of the Fodor's Guidebook approach. I would jot down the basics of what made that plane different and unique, then more details about the specific place the players were going to visit.

I didn't see a need for world mapping, naming cities and continents or coming up with complete histories for a place that was just going to be a stop over or a one shot adventure.

Sometimes I would do full on world building, just because that can be fun in its own right.