Lots have people mentioned their interest in dynamically created settings during various discussions about desired fantasy worlds. There have been a number of attempts at world-building manuals and systems, but what are the possibilities for actually creating such settings as a dynamic of play?

Some initial thoughts to get the ball rolling.

Narrativists will have no problem about the extension of "write authority" over the setting, but I think that mediating this relationship for non-narrativists may be the tricky issue. As an habitually Sim GM, one of my concerns is the introduction of inconsistencies - the danger that a player-authored event leaves me 5 seconds to cover a suddenly gaping hole in consistently. Not only do I have to make up a quick filler fact, I have to remember it long enough to manufacture an opportunity to write it down so as not to give the, well, game away.

One possible solution is "colouring in" the GM draws the outlines and the players fill in detail, perhaps literaly colour. The GM is defining zones of some kind.

Another model would be "white space" or arguably "here be dragons". The surrounding world is quite well defined both in dimension and detail; the undefined zones are circumscribed. The problem with this is that actually going there becomes unlikely or implausible in game logic.

This might be overcome by using them once - an RPG world is a zone surrounding white space, which is necessarily filled in by the GM or by the participants together before actual live play begins - as part of character creation. What about campaign 2 though?

Ah, the joys of late night on-call.

As a primarily Simulationist player, I totally see your point. What I'd suggest is this. Basically, what is defined should be noted as defined, and what is not should be noted as open. Once someone takes up the mantle of defining that undefined area, it becomes noted as defined, and like everything else before it, becomes a reference point for what is allowable.
Frex. If you start with a skeletal setting, and one of your players, given authorial right to do so, says that in a particular reason, elves are hunted down and killed on sight, then it would become part of the setting that elves do not go there. No one could later on say that they created an elven character born and raised in that region. Likewise, another player would be unable to use his authorial right to say that a heavily elven trade caravan has a route straight through that region, unless he posits that they hide their identity, and have contingencies set up in case they are discovered. Everything which is defined becomes a reference point for what follows it. Eventually the setting will be very rich, but it will also manage to be very consistent in it's details, and the players will love the setting all the more because part of them has gone into it's creation.

Hi Gareth,

Maybe a more formal and pre-play procedure can be used, so that the creativity is there but the improvisation isn't.

What I mean is this: an adventure has been concluded somewhere, say at the Forbidden City. Now it's time to have an adventure in the Bubbling Sea. Well, get together - propose a set of geographical, ecological, and cultural things about the Bubbling Sea. Assign some of those things to a player or two ("OK, you figure out what the mer-people are like there"), and open up everything to free discussion. So now you have a new part of the world to play in, and everyone's up to speed regarding anything a player-character would know.

The good thing from a Sim perspective (of this sort) is that "the GM secrets" are still secrets. The GM is now starting with, essentially, a sourcebook, and his privileged information regarding elements of the upcoming adventure is just as privileged as if he were working with a published-sourcebook actual book thing.

How's that sound?

Best,
Ron

As I mentioned in a previous post, one of the best campaigns I played in was one where I had authorial license. The DM (it was 3E) basically had a skeletal outline of the world (it was based on Europe, each country held a different fantasy race, and there was a Greek pantheon of Gods). That was about it. From there he said come up with character backgrounds, and if those backgrounds created part of the history or landscape, so be it.

I was a Priest of Hermes. Neither I nor the DM knew what that meant. So We defined the realms Hermes controlled (messages, thieves, justice) and I came up with the history of the Priesthood and the fact that it had become a Mafia of sorts).

After reading Ron's post I had an inspiration (though this idea is limited a bit to finding an online host for it) - set up a Wiki for your world. A wiki is a sort of anyone-can-modify-it website (see here for more details. You as the GM could then put up some of the stuff about your world that needs to be filled in and have your players fill it in for you. Then as Ron said, you have a "sourcebook" already made for you to plan your games around.

Dynamic creation has been something I have been thinking about for awhile now - is it possible to have a game where the world is really built by the players as play goes on and where the character's backgrounds are "discovered" and created as the game continues, and could these be interrelated?

Something I have been thinking alot about along these veins are points of inspiration. What I mean by points of inspiration are mechanics that can inspire the mind to think of something in an entirely different way or that focusses the mind onto a particular thing.

One example of this are the dictionary words in Bedlam which have to be incorporated into one's monologue. Another are the current psychological uses of Tarot cards and the I-Ching. They both used to be used for divination, now they are used to help you think about a problem from a different angle.

Would incorporating these kinds of things into a game lead somewhere fruitful? Could they help to inspire forgotten (or repressed) character deeds? Could they help to define conflicts that have ravaged the game world?

Just some thoughts of a guy who really needs to eat.

-Shane

As an habitually Sim GM, one of my concerns is the introduction of inconsistencies - the danger that a player-authored event leaves me 5 seconds to cover a suddenly gaping hole in consistently.

I am working on a wiki created world right now. They just started it up, recently. Looks like it's going to be fun.

-Plug Warning-
One suggestion we give for play in Universalis is to start with a pre-defined set of facts. From there, of course, its anybody's world. Might not satisfy the Sim player from that POV, but is certainly similar to what's being discussed. I have seriously been thinking about designing a specifically Sim oriented game similar to Universalis.

So, Gareth, count me in as a supporter of the idea. It can definitely be done. Just a matter of the details.

Mike

Anybody ever try the game EPIC? I just bounced to their site... it looks like a good one for Discover -in- Play ideas. Unfortunately, its hard to tell how it quite works from the website.

Bob McNamee

Hey Bob,

I've got EPICS. I have a print copy of the game that was a precursor to the CD-ROM version. The book itself is wonderfully indie in low-tech, hand-crafted way, and I like this about it quite a bit. It's printed all in black and white, with a non-glossy cardstock cover. The last page in the book that encourages players to submit their house rules, and to communicate with the author and "be a part of EPICS" has been covered over with a full-page sticker that corrects typos on the page underneath it. There's a spot on page 7 where a few sentences of text have been covered with what appears to be a self-adhesive address label colored black with a marker. I love these things about the book. Each copy was lovingly handled by the designer trying to make it nice for you.

I've been on a kick lately buying up unfamiliar games on eBay. And of my recent purchases, EPICS is the one I'm happiest with. Don't believe Soothsayer's subtitle: "The Narrative Adventure Gaming System." It's mostly charts. But EPICS seems like it could very well do in play pretty much what its promo copy says it does. Players create sketchy characters and define them further through the assertions they make about them in play. The assertions earn Survival Point awards, which are a metagame resource used for favorably influencing die rolls and avoiding wounds.

The game relies a bit heavily on the subjectivity of the GM in setting opposing numbers and determining the size of Survival Point awards for my personal taste. I can't help but fear the subjectivity would lend itself to unconscious railroading by the GM. But the "define the character through assertions" mechanics are full-bore Narrativist, and maybe in play they completely compensate for subjectivity in GM handling of opposing numbers and Survival Point awards. It's hard for me to know without having played the game.

Paul

I'm not quite sure if this is completely relevant to the discussion, but...well, it seems to be. My group had a long running V&V game in which each of us had a PC and we rotated GM responsibilities each week. While a GM was running, the previous week's GM ran the current's character for him/her along with their won. At the onset we established the overall setting by group consensus and then laid some very broad "ground rules", but these were more along the lines of what could -not- done (the biggest of which, since we wanted things to be "fresh" was not to have any references to any other V&V characters, villians and games we'd previously played). At the end of a session, the week's GM sat down briefly with the following week's GM and talked about where they had planned on the plot going. The new GM had the right to use all or some of the plot thread the following week as long as nothing was ignored or contradicted without some pretense at resolution. This method resulted in an absolutley fascinating, funny and complex game (talk about plot twists!) that kept us going for quite a while (actually, we've been kicking around the idea of trying it again).

So is what we had a "dynamic setting"? Our method's strengths were good communication between players who had known each other a long time and the fact everyone was very comfortable with the rules set.

Mike Holmes wrote: I am working on a wiki created world right now. They just started it up, recently. Looks like it's going to be fun.