DAS/DIP Distinction in World Design
Edward McWalters
(For those who have not read the FAQ - DAS: Develop At Start; DIP:
Develop In Play)
For the last few years, I've run nothing but Cyberpunk, a game
which, by virtue of its near-future setting, minimizes the need for
world design. Four months ago, however, I initiated an Earthdawn
Campaign which I'd had in very intermittent development for about a
year. In watching the game evolve in play, I've come to an
interesting realization:
I am very much a DAS player, with character design typically
requiring at least thirty hours of preparation before that character
becomes playable. By the time the game begins, the character's
background, mannerisms, posture, etc. have all been thoroughly
detailed, and are unlikely to change without outside stimuli. The
concept is complete, and set in stone.
As a gamemaster, however, I find my approach to world design
is almost entirely DIP. Most pre-campaign preparation time is devoted
to plotting; environments, political factions, even NPC's tend to be
developed only sketchily before the game begins. Only those game
elements which demand further development due to plot considerations
can really demand much of my attention. While I would like to flesh
out the game world in greater detail before the campaign begins,
attempts to do so don't work: Details I come up with fall flat, and
refuse to come to life. It is only once the campaign is in progress,
and the world is therefore 'alive,' that world-design ideas really
begin to flow. Since my Earthdawn campaign began, I've spent about
twenty hours a week on world-design, an inconceivable level of
dedication before the game started.
I bring this up because I'm curious as to how many of you find
this sort of disparity between your approaches to character design and
world design. Is this the norm, or do most people tend to use the
same approach for both? Should we actually expect any sort of
correspondence between these two aspects of gaming? What aspects of
our gamemastering and playing prejudices and preferences will
influence our DIP/DAS tendencies in both areas?
I am particularly curious to hear your thoughts on this
subject, Mary, as you have very strong DIP tendencies as a player, and
in general, seem to approach gamemastering in much the same way you
approach playing. This would suggest DIP tendencies in world design,
but you also have a strong preference for 'real,' solid-feeling
gameworlds, the creation of which is, I think, better served by a DAS
approach to world design. How much of your world design is done
before a campaign begins, and how true does the campaign world remain
to your original vision?
Edward J. McWalters edwa...@ix.netcom.com
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <347b8c96...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> edwa...@ix.netcom.com (Edward McWalters) writes:
[DAS/DIP world design]
> I am particularly curious to hear your thoughts on this
>subject, Mary, as you have very strong DIP tendencies as a player, and
>in general, seem to approach gamemastering in much the same way you
>approach playing. This would suggest DIP tendencies in world design,
>but you also have a strong preference for 'real,' solid-feeling
>gameworlds, the creation of which is, I think, better served by a DAS
>approach to world design. How much of your world design is done
>before a campaign begins, and how true does the campaign world remain
>to your original vision?
We're just starting a new campaign, so this topic is at the top of
the queue....
I do bottom-up world design: I think about the initial area quite a
bit, but I'm cautious about branching out too far. I don't draw
world maps or do ancient history initially, for fear that the world
will become overgeneralized and dry.
For our upcoming campaign, Ars Magic in a world that is not Mythic
Europe, we did some collaborative groundwork. (Collaboration can
really help a DIP GM get the background set: it provides the same
kind of liveliness that play does, or at least it can on a good day.)
We needed to know some basics, like the role of mages in society,
the kind of religion present, and the big oppositions (is the
Church opposed to sorcery? to faeries? to the Wild?) Also, because
it's a campaign heavily slanted towards the Wild, we needed to
know about some Wild plants and animals. But I didn't draw a map
of the West Kingdom, and I was careful not to pin down too much out
there. The campaign will start in a valley far from civilization
anyway, and I need room for DIP.
We got a lot of milage out of pseudo-gaming methods of world creation.
For example, the player and I went for a longish walk during which
we explored the kinds of gossip people in Ethelsbridge (the town
nearest the covenant) would spread about the mages and their
entourage. From the gossip we "learned" a lot of things: that the
baron of Southport is a woman, for example (there was a lot of
tisking about her unmarried status and speculation as to whom she
would marry); that the baron north of Ethelsbridge is unpopular
and an extremist; that local folk recognize the mages as Easterners
by their clothing, and wonder why they aren't flying a lord's
banners; and that the bridge from which the town takes its name is
guarded day and night year-round, and the guards ask your name
when you cross it, so that if the Wild takes you prayers can be said
for the sake of your soul.
I would not do well if I just sat down to design all this stuff,
especially before I've played in the setting.
My past campaigns have gotten into world-design trouble in two
ways. If I don't have a good initial sense of "art direction" (as
Scott calls it) the world may wander too far from conception and
end up somewhere I don't like or can't work with (too extreme,
too reactionary, too hodgepodge, whatever). However, if I pin down
too much I won't leave the place room to develop: for example, an
overly good map early on will lead to everything between noted
points on the map being bland and featureless.
So I guess I'm pretty DIP both as a GM and as a player, though more
so as a player: I do need to do some prep as a GM, unless there
are already world guidelines in place.
The first Ars Magica game we did suffered from not quite enough initial
thought: the governmental structure was too strongly hierarchical,
and it didn't fit well with the kind of game we wanted. It also
suffered from too *much* map and detail; I had trouble getting
excitement into the setting, because much of it felt "nailed down".
I'm hoping that this time we've put the work where it will help and
not hurt the game, but only time will tell.
Jon (my player) told me that the covenant was hated by a baron
(that northern one), a coven (way back in the Kingdon) and
a power of the Wild (near their covenstead). These I have not
prepared in advance; I expect them to develop. I have not
written up any NPCs, though we know a few remotely (i.e. the
merchant who handles the covenant's external trade affairs).
Partly this is because Jon would like the covenant to be very
isolated for a couple of years.
I guess we spent six or eight weeks pre-campaign on this one,
but a lot of it was getting the rules set in shape (we looked at
every spell to make sure it was okay: a few were not) and
figuring out the backstory of the covenant. We also had to design
an economic model from scratch, as our game badly wants one and
there is nothing functional in either AM3 or AM4 for our purposes.
By the way, does *any* system do a good job with "how many acres
per peasant family, and what is the expected revenue from the
land?" I don't need great accuracy or complexity, but at least
internal consistency would be nice! (AM4, which is otherwise not
bad at all, seems to have had the economics in the char-gen rules
and the economics in the covenant-gen rules done by two different
people who were not on speaking terms. They are off by about
a factor of ten.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
R. Serena Wakefield
My spies inform me that, on Wed, 26 Nov 1997 02:43:09 GMT,
edwa...@ix.netcom.com (Edward McWalters), hiding under the bedcovers,
scribbled in the following in their diary:
I am exactly the same in both areas.
As a player, I want to know every detail of my character's life before
I begin play, right down to favorite food and wardrobe. I feel that
this information adds versimilitude (sp?) to my character work, and
gives me an advantage in play. (With the right GM, that is; I also
keep a stable of "4d6 six times and random personality roll"
characters for AD&D pickup games.)
As a gamemaster, I'm a lot more flexible. I'll detail the world and
major NPCs, but for scenario design I generally just decide what the
NPCs will do if the PCs don't interfere, sketch out a few maps of
likely locations, prepare a handout or two and go from there. The few
published scenarios I've really liked have followed this pattern --
Chaosium uses it almost exclusively. In a character-based game, the
PCs are generally too unpredictable for the GM to prepare even HALF of
the encounters beforehand; it's far better, in my eyes at least, to
remain flexible.
R. Serena Wakefield
rai...@ROSECOLOREDGLASSES.gate.net
(remove rose-colored glasses to e-mail)
Serena's Sanctuary: http://www.gate.net/~raistw
Rook
> (For those who have not read the FAQ - DAS: Develop At Start; DIP:
> Develop In Play)
>
> requiring at least thirty hours of preparation before that character
> becomes playable. By the time the game begins, the character's
> background, mannerisms, posture, etc. have all been thoroughly
> detailed, and are unlikely to change without outside stimuli. The
> concept is complete, and set in stone.
>
> As a gamemaster, however, I find my approach to world design
> is almost entirely DIP. Most pre-campaign preparation time is devoted
> to plotting; environments, political factions, even NPC's tend to be
> developed only sketchily before the game begins.
Hmm. That's a hard one to answer.
I don't like to play a character that isn't fully fleshed out in
personality, motivation, and history.
Though I have played several without having yet made a character sheet (to
the anoyance of
most of the GM's I've done it too, but I tend to get away with it by
having a good enough concept
to catch their imaginations.).
As a GM I can spend months to years developing a world. My Super Hero
world has been in works
on my website for months.
( http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/ )
Once I get it to where I want it, I plan to run both PBeM and Table Top
games with it.
My fantasy world ( http://www.infinex.com/~rook/stryfe.htm )
was started in 1991 when I decided to toss my old one. I've still yet to
get it to
where I want it before I'll run anymore than a 'one shot'.
I tend to develop the 'paradigm' of my worlds first. I'm not sure how
to say this. Basically the mood
and feel of them. I've never done a map for my fantasy world for instance.
It's a mythic place. The exact locations of things aren't important. The
feel of them is.
Plots? I never develop them either. In this area I'm definatley DIP. I
run all my games at about 95%
add-lib. I tend to know who the bad-guys are, and why. But the what and
how often get resolved in game.
Similarly my NPC's are collections of personalities and motivations.
The 'sheets' on them are often
lacking in detail and often inaccurate.
So: DAS for mood, feel, and theme of a world.
DIP for map (if ever), plots, details.
--
Rook
Super Hero Links Page:
http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
My Champions Webpage is at:
http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Editor of the Super-Hero Networld project for Living Legends at:
http://www.infinex.com/~rook/liv_leg.htm
scott....@3do.com
In article <347b8c96...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
edwa...@ix.netcom.com (Edward McWalters) wrote:
>
> (For those who have not read the FAQ - DAS: Develop At Start; DIP:
> Develop In Play)
>
> which, by virtue of its near-future setting, minimizes the need for
> world design. Four months ago, however, I initiated an Earthdawn
> Campaign which I'd had in very intermittent development for about a
> year. In watching the game evolve in play, I've come to an
> interesting realization:
>
> requiring at least thirty hours of preparation before that character
> becomes playable. By the time the game begins, the character's
> background, mannerisms, posture, etc. have all been thoroughly
> detailed, and are unlikely to change without outside stimuli. The
> concept is complete, and set in stone.
>
> As a gamemaster, however, I find my approach to world design
> is almost entirely DIP. Most pre-campaign preparation time is devoted
> to plotting; environments, political factions, even NPC's tend to be
> elements which demand further development due to plot considerations
> can really demand much of my attention. While I would like to flesh
> out the game world in greater detail before the campaign begins,
> attempts to do so don't work: Details I come up with fall flat, and
> refuse to come to life. It is only once the campaign is in progress,
> and the world is therefore 'alive,' that world-design ideas really
> begin to flow. Since my Earthdawn campaign began, I've spent about
> twenty hours a week on world-design, an inconceivable level of
> dedication before the game started.
>
Well I am a half DIP/Das player, not knowing the character well until I
"play out" a few reactions. But generally I am DAS enough that I can't
evn build a character, until I know the background enough to be able to
determine the character's role in society. So, by extension, I am more
DAS in GM-ing, and world creation.
In would building I take a very strong hand. I first start with a map. I
have had some geology training, so I tend to put together some resonable
continents and island chain, and figure out where the earthquake bands
are. These have an effect on future religions and history. I then think
about my initial desire of what I want this game to be about, then I
pick some areas on the map that look like likely centers of commerce, and
empire, and timeline. starting at both ends and wring to the middle. This
creates strong national myths, and detailed local history back a few
years, and then a murky middle ground I can go back and flesh out later.
Religions are designed so that they produce a required temperment in the
people of the land I want in a particular spot. all processes are
directed in producing and end result the way i want it to look and feel,
and also have rock solid self consistency all the way back in History.
I think about how the cultures and species interact, and generally assume
the worst, so the history is bloody, conflicted, and favors the strong
and smart of the weak and thoughtless. From the technology comes the
warfare, From the crops come the government, and with enough
interactions, the history begins to have a very realistic feel. If there
is strong magic that is taken into account, and effects the history, as
the invention of flight has done to this century. At first a novelty,
then a capturer of imagination, to a prized weapon of war, then just
another tool of government commerce, and enterprise. I tend not create
backgrounds strong on poetry or those elusive qualities that attract
Mercedes Lackey or MZB fans.
Finally I detail a few NPC's in tha origin point, and then detail the
major players n the rest of the world, because it is from their
leadership, empires move to. Integrating the characters and their
families into the history is where a good chunk of the pre-game
negotiation goes to. I take a very firm hand in 'Art Direction" meaning
that the characters should be seamless wih the background. No Kenjutsu
practicioners in 12th century France for instance. Themes were extant,
but broad. My fantasy world could have been themed "Negotiation leads to
getting back stabbed, so kill your enemies straight up front",But it was
a soft theme and in some cases not true. Subthemes would be for long term
campaign goals or character development, but in no way was there any sort
of coersive plotting or storytheading, the motion was 70% dependant upon
the players doing something.
This process may take about a year, but results in worlds that I know
how will react if the players say "Jump". There is still a lot of filing
and sanding an polishing that goes on constantly as the characters
interact with the world. Now I have had another GM use my world to run
games, and she was pleased with the level of information she had access
to. However she ran for the sake of Mystery, and revelation, and that was
not a feature of the design, for me, the mystery and entertainment was
observing how the players and their characters reacted to the situaions
that developed in the game. I found the players fascinating. That was
>my< entertainment. But I have not felt the itch to run in a long time,
and my creative energies are being diverted elsewhere these days...
I hope this answers your questions in a useful manner.
Scott
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet