World Design/Game Worlds - A Matter of Taste
World Design
|
Original Article by Paul Estin
Most role-playing games take place in some sort of a game world. By "game world." I refer not only to the actual fantastic or futuristic or alternate-earth setting, but more generally, to "how things work" in the game. A game world. is both defined and limited by the game master (GM), the players, and by the rules system under which the game is being run. Oftentimes, problems can occur when these three sources come into conflict. For example, a GM may want to run a universe with certain physical laws, only to discover that the system he uses restricts the laws of the universe in quite a different way. Or, perhaps a player comes into a game expecting lots of combat taking place in an anarchic world, only to discover that the game world. has a complex governmental and historical structure, and that the adventures are based around puzzle-solving and diplomacy.
This article will attempt to outline some of the ways in which game worlds can vary according to the tastes of the game designers, the GM, and the players. Some of the variations tend to be things about which people have strong opinions; for example, some players refuse to play in game worlds which incorporate characters and settings from external literary sources. Other issues are more a matter of minor personal preference, subject to change from game to game, such as the level of violence in a game. Nobody's opinion is necessarily right or wrong on any of these issues; it is simply true that games will proceed more smoothly the more the game system, the game master, and the players are all in agreement.
I will outline two general categories of variation. First, there are issues concerning "how the world works", including the scientific and pseudo-scientific laws, the way societies work, and other issues. The other category is "what the players do"; this includes what sort of adventures occur, the levels of violence and lethality, and the levels of ability and responsibility possessed by the player- characters (PCs).
How the World Works
Organized and Open-ended Game worlds
The first variant of a game world. is whether there are really any hard-and-fast rules at all. Many GMs like to run under the idea of "anything goes, anything can happen", or at least that "anything within the rules is OK". There are problems with the "no-rules" world, however. A game world. can get very chaotic, with players confused as to which actions are in the realm of possibility, and which are not. Besides, a game world. always has some limitations; they may simply be inconsistent or subject to the GM's whim. It's probably best for a GM, when designing a world, to build self-consistent rules. Otherwise, there will be arguments when a player's designed character isn't acceptable for unexplainable reasons, or when an event occurs that shouldn't have, based on previous rules. (GM: "You are struck by an invisible creature and knocked out." Player: "Wait! You said that in your world, nothing can attack while invisible!") Obviously, a GM doesn't have to reveal everything about his world to the players, but he should be able to build a consistent framework which can be gradually revealed to the PCs.
Science, Pseudoscience, and Fantasy
Most game worlds have some elements of fantasy, whether they be paranormal superpowers, magic, or simply the fact that heroes don't die as easily as normal people. There are two things that can vary. First, how do physical science laws differ from "real life"? The Champions game system allows a normal person to throw rocks the length of a football field, for example. Normal people can kick cars apart, they almost never take physical damage when they are knocked out, and they can go from complete exhaustion to complete recovery in far less than a minute. Is this what you want in your game, or can you at least tolerate such discrepancies? Another possible variable in a game world. is the technical level. As a player or gamemaster, make sure you understand what is physically and technically possible in a game world.
The second variable of fantasy lies in how physical laws are superseded. For example, the Ars Magica magic system is fairly tightly structured. A spell that works on an animal (animalem) is different from one that works on a person (corporem), and both are different from one that works on a creature's brain (mentem). This may or may not be the magical structure you want, be you GM or player. As another example, I ran a Champions campaign called "Polyworld", in which all paranormal powers had to work by some form of telekinesis, by access to one of five specific pocket dimensions, or by ability to move oneself between dimensions. Thus, it was easy to determine what would occur in a specific situation, or what effects a specific type of "power damper" would have. On the down side, it somewhat restricted the possible conceptions of character's powers.
Decide what is possible and consistent with your fantasy or pseudoscience, and stick to it. That will help avoid problems such as a GM telling his players, "That's a great technical solution; it will work on everyone except magic- users." I myself prefer the definition of magic as simply being science we don't understand, but I can play in a system where this clearly isn't the case, and in which magic breaks the game world.'s physical laws, as long I know this ahead of time. There other decisions that should also be made and understood. Does luck exist as a separate entity? Is time travel possible? Does the game world. have a "multi- dimensional" structure? If so, what are the "rules"?
Note that sometimes players' tastes will change. For example, normally I have nothing against a game world. wherein many or infinite parallel worlds exist, if such a subject is done well, but lately I have played in or GMed many such game worlds, and I'm tired of the concept. If you're a GM starting a campaign, find out your player's likes and dislikes, and try to respect them, or at least warn them.
Special Interests
Players and GMs may also differ as to their opinions on "special interests". For example, as both a psychology major, I am often unsatisfied by a GM's system of handling mental abilities. For example, I believe that a telepath couldn't help but learn a lot about psychology, but I play in a Champions campaign where a certain non-player character (NPC) who is a telepath is simply a snide teenage paranormal whose powers happen to be telepathic; her powers have affected her personality not at all. Furthermore, her mental powers work on artificial intelligence devices, as in accordance with strict Champions rules, but in opposition to my own views on how telepathy "should" work. Most games have a dualistic view of mind and brain (which shows up in magic systems, definitions of mental powers, astral forms, afterlife, and reincarnation). Once in a while, this would be all right, but to me it becomes monotonous to have mind and body categorized separately in every game I play.
As a more common example of a special interest, someone interested in history or political science, for example, might be upset playing in a game where the GM has put little thought as to how a certain governmental structure arose. I played in a Champions game in which there was a vast infrastructure of conspiracies and secret organizations, although most of the players disagreed with or were bored by the concept; conversely, I have seen a game world. in which the world government was supposedly unpopular and on the verge of collapse, although there were no underground organizations working to that end. Neither one of these games satisfied me in that respect.
Other common special interests that vary from person to person include computer science and medicine.
Conflicting special interests tend to be a fairly minor problem between players and GM, in terms of causing arguments. More often, the difference in opinion simply causes the problem that players do not think of a possible action, or they put an inappropriate priority on a given problem, because they have a different understanding from the GM of what is "possible" or "important" in the game world.
External Sources:
One very large source of discontent is conflicting opinions on how, or even whether, external sources should be brought into a game world. Some people believe that all game worlds should be kept "pure" of characters and places from books, movies, TV shows, comic books, music, etc. The purists tend to believe that an external source should only be brought in if the game world is a "literary" world based on that source; for example, a game played in the Archipelago of Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea trilogy. Otherwise, ideas brought in form other sources should have names and details changed, so that they are unrecognizable to the players. Other people believe that "crossovers" with many different characters, places, and sources adds flavor and humor to a game world.; GMs of this category build "post-modernist" worlds containing a myriad of derivations.
It is very difficult for two people whose opinions differ greatly on external sources to game peaceably together, particularly if the GM is a post-modernist and the player is a purist. I will try to make some suggestions, however, for the GM who is in such a situation.
Realize that the use of crossovers and external sources tends to undercut other parts of the game world. As an example, I was in a Champions campaign in which one adventure featured the PCs being trapped in a pseudo-medieval world. This was very different from the normal "superhero" game play, and very engaging to me as a player. After nearly two game sessions, the characters did escape from the world-- only to wind up in the Bugtown of the comic books by Matt Howarth, where they met Savage Henry, the Caroline clones, and Cthulhu the Elder God. Metaphorically, I was suddenly sent from "being my character" to sitting at a table with some sheets of paper in front of me, listening to the GM discuss comic book characters. The illusion of actually being one's character, one of the best parts of role-playing, was destroyed.
Don't be a "lazy GM" who lets crossovers substitute for giving your players descriptions. Since it is almost certain that some of your players won't know a given reference, don't just say "John Constantine walks out; what do you do?" Describe the character's appearance and behavior, just as you would for any other NPC in your game.
Post-modernism isn't as bad of a transgression if the world isn't very serious to begin with, but it can be fatal to a game which is otherwise very "real" to the players. Crossovers and in-jokes can be used as a change of pace, to inject humor, much as they are used in the comic book "Cerebus", but be very careful not to destroy the plot line and the game world. for the sake of a laugh. Keep the serious sacred, if that's what your players want.
What the Players Do
The Type and Tone of the Game
What kind of a game is this, anyway? Are the players supposed to be superheroes, traveling wizards, greedy adventurers, world-savers, space merchants, what? It can cause problems if the players are expecting to be self-interested adventurers, and the GM expects them to be world-savers.
Beyond the general type of adventures that will take place (which probably should and will vary somewhat, anyway), a GM should try to be flexible as to how players come up with solutions. It can be frustrating, as a GM, to plan out an adventure, only to have the players do something totally unexpected; likewise, it can be frustrating, as a player, to have the GM expect you to work out a "puzzle" that you're incapable of solving. Here, the GM must tread a thin line; he can't script the adventure so that player's actions are too limited, but if he tries to "wing it" (and he must, to some degree) he runs the danger of making a decision he'll regret later, perhaps because it contradicts other information about the game world. Striking a balance between good planning and scripting, and between good extemporaneous game mastering and self-contradiction, is one of the most difficult aspects of GMing.
Levels of Combat and Lethality
One of the most obvious variables in a game is what players have to do to succeed. Though several actions play a part in this, perhaps the most obvious is violent action. How much combat will play a part in each adventure? Here, it is almost impossible to satisfy everyone; doubtless a GM and players will have a wide variety of opinions of what constitutes the "proper" amount of combat. The best you can do as a GM is to try to see what the majority of players want. As a player, try to go along with the majority; if you just aren't getting what you want, you may have to leave the game. And if neither the players nor the GM are satisfied, the problem may be that the system is geared towards setting up combat, and that it takes special effort (or a different system) to break out of the mold.
Another game variable is how lethal any given combat is. There are GMs who play their NPCs as a general would, tactically destroying large numbers of the player-characters. Many of their players, however, dislike having their characters killed off. Other GMs never, ever, kill off a PC; even when the game system rules say that a PC is dead and gone, they'll find a way to resurrect the character. This can be very annoying to a player who believes that heroism is useless without risk, knowing that the GM will never let him die. The lethality of a game is one of the most important things for players and a GM to agree upon.
With Great Responsibility Comes Great Power
Or Should
The opposite of combat is non-combat; however, defining non-combat varies from game to game. The GM should try to adapt to what players want to do. For example, if the PCs, knowing that the world is in danger, want to seek out experts for help, then it is frustrating to them if none of the NPCs give them any information. On the other hand, a mysterious stranger shouldn't suddenly appear with the world's secrets in hand, either. There should be a balance.
Along the same lines, the PCs often have an increase in both power and responsibility as a campaign progresses. For example, a Champions game may begin with a group of local heroes, who grow to become world-savers. The important thing for a GM to keep in mind is that the PCs' abilities should keep pace with their responsibilities. If it has already been established that there are people in the world more competent than the PCs, but the GM expects the PCs to save the world, there had better be a very good reason why the NPCs can't do the job themselves. Otherwise, players can get frustrated.
Conclusion
In this article, I have attempted to outline some of the variations that can exist among different game worlds and games. This information will be most useful to game masters, in terms of picking the proper game system and satisfying their players. It will also be useful for players looking for games with which they will be satisfied. Many of these issues are a matter of taste, but if you are careful to find gamers with similar tastes, you'll be a happier role-player for the effort.
