Overbrewing the Homebrew World

[Judd]

I am most certainly a GM who is a frustrated writer and enjoys creating worlds in order to creatively stretch my toes in the sand.

However, I find that the best world-building with RPG's is done slowly, not with a world that is entirely realized but a world that the GM and the players realize together.

Has anyone had a first game of a campaign be with Universalis and then used and expanded on the world you all created together?

I have more to say on this but this will be a good starting point.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hi Judd.

I don't quite understand your question. Could you rephrase it?

[Blake Hutchins]

Hi Judd,

No, but I've been wanting to do exactly what you describe: create a world with my group using Universalis, then jump into it using Hero Wars or Sorcerer or Story Engine, fleshing out the details via play.  It's a wonderful way to get group buy-in, I think.

Best,

Blake

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Oh. I think I get it now. Would this be better suited to the Universalis forum? Or qualified by "using Universalis or some other method to creat the setting" That was what confused me.

[Mike Holmes]

I think we can expand this a bit and make it suitable.

For one, Aria was an influcence on our design in some small, mostly theoretical, ways. In that game, you do exactly what you describe, making the world and legends and then playing in it. Similarly, I think that COTEC is going to do this to an extent with it's Genesis session.

So, I guess the answer is yes, seems totally plausible to use one system to create a world and another to play in it. Primeval anyone?

So what are you waiting for? Be the first on the block to try out this technique and let us all know how it goes.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

Multiverser actually recommends the technique (one of several) of bringing a player into an undefined world and building it around him as he moves; however, it's not assumed that you would then use the world for another game--although I'm sure you could.

I've done it a few times, and had it done to me when I was playing.

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Judd,

Perhaps the topic twisted as you typed, but what is the significance of the term overbrewing, in your title? Is there a concern that you have about the process which didn't happen to get articulated in your post?

Best,
Ron

[Judd]

I'm sorry, folks, I have this idea that is all foggy in my head but I'm groping for it.

By overbrewing I mean over-thinking a world so that there aren't enough spaces for the players to fill.  I think I have over-made worlds so that the players aren't a part of the process and they feel like tourists rather than rip-roaring heroes.

I was just thinking of ways to include PC's in the world-building process.  Certainly inspired by Mithras' Sword and Sorcery - Collaboration in Action thread.

Universalis seemed like a ready-made system for collaborative storytelling and I think it would be neat to use a blank map as the record keeping.  

Thanks for your patience,

Judd

I run an after-school program and might use a version of this with the students but I am also interested in using it with my more regular groups.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Judd,

You've probably seen this already, but the current really twisted mean idea thread in the Riddle of Steel forum offers some good ideas about these issues. As a Sorcerer & Sword veteran, as well, you've considered how GM-context, player-input during prep can be combined. Do any of these ideas seem to shake out into usable version for you?

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

By overbrewing I mean over-thinking a world so that there aren't enough spaces for the players to fill.  I think I have over-made worlds so that the players aren't a part of the process and they feel like tourists rather than rip-roaring heroes.

This is a very important issue, IMO. The other night on IRC the subject of Talislanta came up. I haven't seen that setting, but I've heard a lot of people raving about how good it is. So I asked what it was like. Mike said something like: "You wouldn't like it, Nathan. It's already finished." He said it humorously, but his point is a good one. I don't like settings that are extremely complete and detailed.

IMO, a good setting gives the players enough information to play in, but maintains a great deal of the unknown for the players to discover (I.e., create) on their own. A good setting should bemore of a starter motor than a complete combustion engine. Charnel Gods is a great example of this. So is the Atlantis setting that comes with BTRC's Epiphany.

Universalis is an excellent engine for a creation activity such as you describe. I think it would be analogous to the *incomplete* type setting I described above. What I mean is that, rather than play off of existing setting elements to get new setting ideas, the players would play off of *each other.* That's how Universalis games have gone IME. A lot of times one goes into a Universalis game without any ideas. But something one of the other players says will trigger a "Oh yeah, it would be cool if..." type of reaction.

[Judd]

I think what I am also wrestling with is the difference between a good imaginative idea and a good gaming idea.

It is beginning to come together for me, yeah.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I think what I am also wrestling with is the difference between a good imaginative idea and a good gaming idea.

Heh. You are not alone on this. Many people who work for the better-know game publishers are doing this.