I'm planning to run a sea-based campaign, and pic-related is what I've initially come up with for the island-continent hosting the sea where the players will be sailing. The sea is being polluted by means of large scale magic energy runoff and shit. In black is said continent at present, and in red is if the sea level gets higher in future.My plan is that the kingdom on the left has an economic interest in accelerating the enshittification of the sea so that they can sink that land-bridge between the two continents and open up better trade routes to export their land-goods to some other major empire across the larger ocean, while promoting and hiring pirate-submariners to loot local sunken territory, and dually sabotaging other local kingdoms. Are there any glaring issues or leaps of logic in the plot or antagonist motivations or logistics? I'm very amateurish to this sort of worldbuilding.
Here's the before and after overlapped.
>>97593609Sounds like a much worse plan than just digging a canal and charging people to use it.
I like the idea, even if theres more logical ways the empire could handle their trade the idea of flooding a land bridge to have a better trade route is cool and unique, doesn't need to be completely believable because we're talkng fantasy here you're allowed stretches and leaps
>>97593609my question is how the players are supposed to get remotely involved with this plot
>>97593618What are their territorial borders? I'm guessing that the Kingdom of the right is the one that holds the land bridge if the Kingdom of the left is that determined to sink it beneath the ocean?
>>97593700They're supposed to go "Oooh, ahh, that's so clever!" when an NPC reveals the plan.
>>97593700At the plea of the rightmost kingdom or as a delegation from the larger foreign empire investigating the local ongoing incident. The “magically polluting the sea” bit is a conspiratorial operation in-world and they wouldn’t be aware of it later on. The site of the cause would definitely be in a third location on the sea rather than splat in the middle of the leftmost Kingdom, so that the scale is more feasible for a party to interact with.>>97593628>>97593715I do think I could avoid a canal solution if the rightmost Kingdom has territory on the land bridge. But fuck if I know how to justify why they wouldn’t like to charge the traffic as you said and make a significant buck.
>want to improve sea trade>flood all the ports in the worldI'm not an expert in boats or economics, but I'm not convinced that will help.
>>97593825Fuck I also forgot to voice my problem with this aspect. I don’t know how to keep this as a LOCAL issue (until the land bridge sinks). I’d prefer for the two land masses to remain separate save for the land bridge but that leaves the south of the sea open and connects it to the greater oceans immediately. I feel a near ring shaped continent is too on the nose, but I can’t imagine a good reason for the pollution to stay local. >>97593696Sorry forgot to say I appreciate your input a lot, thanks.
>>97593825easy fix, they built the majority of their ports further elevated above the sea level before the flooding plan came to fruition, could involve a sort of port elevator, easy to say you built them high above the water to avoid tsunamis or something
>>97593870Sounds dubious. The sea level has to rise enough to not only submerge the isthmus, but to give laden boats enough clearance to pass safely. That's going to be more than most of the environmentalist doomsday scenarios we have today. I can't imagine a port built for one depth to still work with the other. Never mind that it would totally fuck those tsunami defences.It seems to me they need to fuck with the land itself. If they can't build a canal for political reasons maybe they could "accidentally" pollute the land, then pollute the sea with something that reacts with the first pollutant to carve through the land. Or maybe it's a DMZ that's already fucked up and heavily controlled.
>>97593609I agree with >>97593825It makes more sense to use magic to sink the isthmus than anything else
>>97593846>I don’t know how to keep this as a LOCAL issueSay so. You've got magical pollution causing sea-level rise, anon. Just say it does--who gives a shit? But if you wanna have some handwavy blah-blah, the ocean isn't flat. Not anywhere. In the US, sea level on the west coast is higher than sea level on the east coast.
>>97593609... you realise none of this matter, right?As in - it's all an afterthought to having a sea-based campaign>I'm very amateurish to this sort of worldbuilding.You are unironically wasting time on stuff that doesn't matter one bit and elements that are completely beyond the point of running a game.Consult >>97593700 and >>97593759This a a no-goMate, ask yourself a simple question: why the hell you are trying to make some sort of grandiose campaign, while you are clueless AND new? Other than, of course, the fact you are clueless and new.Start small and start simple. You are doing the classic blunder of a "missing step" plan, where you directly jump to point 5 "PROFIT!", while points 2-4 are "???"Hell, I'm gonna risk being called a shill, but go try out Pirate Borg and it's scenario generator. Game's shit, but it fully understands the sort of plots you can get with nautical campaigns, so throwing 5d100, you are going to get a more coherent end result than whatever you are cooking right now.A link, so you can use it for free on scribd:679987065And when in doubt - pic related
>>97594387This is the way. Sealevel isn't the same on opposite sides of continents. Tides are different heights depending on where you are. And that's in the real world. With magic saying that the sea is suddenly deeper in an area centered on the isthmus makes more sense (in terms of magical storytelling) than trying to deal with rapidly rising sea levels for the whole world.For flooded ports near the isthmus, remember river ports are a thing. Just say one or two critical ports were always slightly upriver in a major navigable river. Post flooding the sea just got slightly closer.
>>97593609How the fuck players are even suppose to interact with this as a game material? This is a global-scale scenario, handled on kingdom level.Nigga, the fuck are you even doing?
>>97593609Um... what's the goal?Like: what the players are supposed to do?The very basis making a campaign is asking yourself "What the players are supposed to achieve". And you clearly didn't ask yourself that question.Also: dig a fucking canal, you moron.
>>97594416>>97594427>>97594440Ignore this shit-ass advice, OP.No: not everything about your game has to be about "what are my players going to do next session?" Yes: worldbuilding creates a more interesting world as a backdrop. And Yes: it's a legitimate and big part of the fun for us as GMs./tg/'s fear of being called "nogames" has reached defcon 2, so everyone's trying to perform that they're a "real" player following the "real" advice that true gamers follow. But plenty of GMs worldbuild 'cuz we like it. Imagine if these brosr retards joined WH40k. "Lol why are you wasting so much time painting the miniatures? Go play a game nogames."
I must admit, this >>97594449 type of trolling is relatively fresh.
>>97594449It's not even that, such a scenario and plot would inform all levels of play. You'd have to deal with sea critters being alarmed at low levels, try to find your way up in management to uncover the plot, or be at higher levels and actively want to stop the plot, or help it move forward, or profit from it, or try to fuck off. These people who can't see how such a thing can change the way a campaign is played have no imagination, and they can't picture a game (no wonders here) that's more involved than "I open the door to the next room"
>>97594466>Advocating for worldbuilding is trollingYou're not an authority on ttrpgs. You don't get to tell other people what kind of fun they're allowed to have. Just go back to your little BROSR thread and scream about how much you hate tieflings or what-the-fuck-ever.
>>97594449Fuck man, I'm gonna bite that, grab a well-earned (You)
>>97594482>If I just spam accusations of trolling, no one will notice that it's true
>>97594471>This is totally a gameable thing that isn't just massive time sink to achieve nothing in particular>Trust me, bro>>97594476Advocating for worldbuilding isn't trollingBut telling a clueless guy that he should ignore the "game" part of RPG and focus on worldbuilding, while screeching about nogames ruining hobby definitely is.
>>97594488You've concluded he's "clueless" because he's talking about worldbuilding. You're retarded.
>>97594466It really isn't. It's the same old tired "Suggest the most nonsensical path of action, while calling everyone else troll and then proceed with throwing tempered tantrum and max-projection replied".As seen with >>97594476 and >>97594486, both right on cue.It's the standard template of shitposting since at the very least 2022. Now the rest of the thread will the the same guy desperately posting more and more inflammatory posts that will quickly completely go out of any sensible scale, then replaced wither with keking posts or outright word salad greentexts.So: same shit, nothing new, another derailed thread
>>97594488>pontificating about time sinks while you're wasting your time policing badwrongfun on 4chanThe little credibility you had? You lost it.Anon is having fun and making his game better, that's more than a lot of people here can say.
>>97594493>I'll just spam "it's trolling">No one will notice it's correctThe fit throwing is 100% those of you trying to gaslight OP into believing he's having fun wrong.
>>97594494>Anon is having funProbably>making his game betterUnlikely, given even he had rightful doubts about the scenario.And I get it that it's daytime in States already, but "prize for trying" only works in that one specific country. Everywhere else, you either deliver a good game, or you didn't.Still: OP had enough humility to ask and was rightfully told that this is either way, way past the level of a player party, and also the various obvious issues of the scenarios. Both of which OP asked for himself.But here you are, throwing tantrums that OP got precise what he asked for.>>97594498(You)
>>97594486>>97594498You plan to spend the next 100-150 posts doing this routine?
>>97594508>I know! If I'm wrong, I'll accuse someone else of being angry on the internet!>That means I win the argument, right?It doesn't.>I'm the authority on how people should play games!You're not.
>>97594513>I'll keep accusing anyone who disagrees with me on the internet of being a trollStop whenever you like, anon.
>>97594517Consult >>97594493
>>97594525>It's trolling to disagree with me on the internet!lol
>>97594517>>97594521>>97594529So I guess you do.
>>97593609>so that they can sink that land-bridge between the two continents and open up better trade routes>Are there any glaring issues or leaps of logic in the plot or antagonist motivations or logistics?Maritime trade routes tend to go from one port city to another port city. Raise the sea levels and those port cities are gone, and so even if sailing around got easier there's little point to it now that your home port and intended destination have both ceased to be. These are not trips where the journey is the important bit, they're are wholly about the destination.Also the evil empire's great interest in this suggests that maritime trade is a huge deal to them, meaning they likely have a lot of port cities to loose and that said cities have a huge economic value to them. Trying to move them all will cost an insane amount, especially since you're going to have to do it gradually as the sea rises, rebuilding all the necessary port infrastructure over and over again and
>>97593609From the top of my head:1) How is this supposed to affect the players? They are just spectators here to global event2) Assuming players are supposed to stop this from happening - unless you plan some clandestine top secret mission stuff, this is just a backstory for a war between two kingdoms3) If sea level goes up, then ports get flooded long before the land bridge is removed. Unless the goal is having a Captain Planet type villain, this makes no sense4) Why not digging a canal? It's clearly a fantasy setting with magic capable of changing global sea levels, so real-life considerations and physical limitations are a non-issue5) How exactly is anyone gaining on this thing? Let's assume the ports survive and all that's achieved is new navigable route - how is it profitable, if it doesn't really affect shipping lines? From your description, it just seems to be a canal for the sake of having a canal, Corinth style
>>97593846Put a temple or other important to some but less important to those in power type of city, location, etc., on the land bridge. Have the rising waters be an issue to the players and locals in that location.
>>97593609Replace the rising sea level with a planned destruction of the isthmus and you'll have something both more believable and something your players can do something about.>>97594493All trolls work the same in the end, I meant more the flavour of it.I haven't seen yet a troll "advising" someone to ignore the player-facing aspect of the game and focus on world building.The worldbuilders on /tg/ usually are aware of the fact they do it for themselves, some don't even pretend to have players.
>>97594583>I haven't seen yet a troll "advising" someone to ignore the player-facing aspect of the game and focus on world building.So you went from>Anyone who disagrees with me on the internet is a trollTo>Let me invent a strawman lolNo one ever claimed this:>ignore the player-facing aspect of the game and focus on world building."Yes do a thing" is not the same as "yes do a thing and only that thing and I'm telling you to ignore all the other things!"
>>97594583>"Yes do a thing" is not the same as "yes do a thing and only that thing and I'm telling you to ignore all the other things!"Like... if your doctor said "it's not a big deal that you had french fries for lunch," would you flip out and scream "this doctor is trolling he just told me to live off french fries for the rest of my life!!!1!"
You're either a troll or someone so stupid that your advice is harmful.I went with the option that's more flattering.Either way, no more (You)s from me.
>>97594615Consult: >>97594529
>>97593628P A N A M AANAMA
>>97593609>Are there any glaring issues or leaps of logic in the plot or antagonist motivations or logistics?Nope, run it.
>>97593609And players are supposed to... what, exactly?
>>97594785They're supposed to play the game.And since OP didn't mention anything about a game, it's safe to assume he's got it all figured out on that front.
>>97594814My question is more in tune "how is this supposed to affect the players" than anything else. Right now sounds like setting trivia for the sake of trivia, except OP asked if it's a sound plan, which likely means it's supposed to play an actual role in the game. And I just don't really see it.
>>97594835Players can be affected in all sorts of ways by such a thing, anon. You might as well ask how corporate factions squabbling can influence players in cyberpunk.
>>97594845Sure but also, it's worth asking "how is your worldbuilding gonna affect the game?" That's the fun part that you get to share w/ the players.
>>97594845But there is no real way to put it to the players other than either info-dump or putting it in a campaign prompt. This is not something you gonna share with them during the game, unless you plan to stop the game and start talking about the setting.Worldbuildng for the sake of itself is pointless.
>>97594835It looks to me like the object of the game is to either stop or assist the left kingdom"s plan to destroy everything, and whether the players are able to meet whatever of the game's challenges they impose on themselves are what will affect them, and how it will affect them involves the results of said challenges.OP asked if it's a sound plan, which he really shouldn't have, because I see no issues as far as playing a game goes, if my assumptions are correct, at least.If this is a matter of lore, we have a writing thread for that. If it's a matter of worldbuilding, there's a thread for that too. And if it's meant for collaborative storytelling, there's an entire board for that.So, it's only safe to assume OP has things under control game-wise, therefore there are no issues with his game's premise.
>>97594850Silly question to ask. The basic point of worldbuilding is giving context to the game, but the game is not supposed to be consumed passively, it can be explored and influenced at will. So, you have to get something ready just in case, like a not necessarily detailed map if your players start travelling. To keep things consistent, mainly, otherwise you end up pulling things out of your ass every time. Can be good enough for one shots and short campaigns, maybe, not gonna deny that.In the same way, you have characters with agendas, that will likely belong to groups with agendas of their own. These come into play when it's time to react to what the players do.So, we have a rough map of the world, with a definite location for the point of interest (the land bridge), something happening on a global scale, so you can be involved in something related to it wherever you are plopped, and organizations that do things. Why do they do things? Because there's a plan. Bam, you have all you need.
>>97594863>>97594874>Translation: none of this matters and, but OP made it anywayOkay
>>97594859>Worldbuildng for the sake of itself is pointless.So is arguing about someone else's game, but here we are. We have fun doing it, like anon is. At worst it's a neutral on the quality of his game, and a positive on a personal level. No reason not to do it.>no real way to put it to the playersAnon, uncovering conspiracies and then doing something with the knowledge is hardly new as a campaign theme.
>>97594874Nah, it's never a silly question.>How does my worldbuilding interact with my playersIs a great source for material as you plan adventures and sessions.
>>97594879Boy, if you ever have a game it will surely be miserable.
>>97594879No, the translation to >>97594863 is what I said.If my assumption that this is about a game is actually incorrect, it would be nice to know.
>>97594883So you are against wordlbuilding but somehow in favour of planning adventures? Care to elaborate?
>>97594863Have it occurred to you that OP might actually not have this figured out? Which is also usually the sort of situation with high concepts like this one?
>>97594896He does have it figured out, though.Assuming this is for a game, and going by the fact he said nothing about the game he's playing, it's safe to draw the conclusion he has it figured out how the players are going to play the game.He didn't ask about gameplay, so he clearly has everything relevant to a game figured out.
>>97594895Nta, but have your like, at least once in your life?Players interact with what's in the game. If you have some elaborate scheme going in the game, the only way for players to interact with it is to know about it. And to know about it, they would need an exposition. Which, given the plan itself, is pretty daunting task and on two different levels: cramming it all up into the game situation and, more importantly, players being in any way able to affect the situation.Those are the most basic concerns when running a game: how players are supposed to learn about something and how they can affect it.This always reminds me of a classic case of an infamous book published in my country, where the guy penning it was giving advice for an epic adventure that... played out itself, without players interacting. The gist of it was that players are supposed to arrive to sea-side location and the local fishermen solve their sea monster problem all on their own, while players just observe it. And the writer went on how brilliant it is, missing entirely the fact there is no actual game for the players - the people will be just sitting to the table and listening to their GM telling them a background event that doesn't concern them and doesn't affect them, then... leave, because the session is over. Ironically enough, this remained a mainstay advice for novice GMs - as in "Do not do this stuff, for there is no game left for players".And this is this sort of deal here. Players MUST be able to interact with whatever plot you have made. Otherwise you just have people sitting around the table listening to your monologue.
>>97594922*have you run>>97594909>He does have it figured out, though.Source?
>>97594928>SourceRead:-> >>97594814-> >>97594863-> >>97594909
>>97594922>>97594928I have, and planning adventures is the worst mistake you can do, because players are not passive consumers, they can do whatever. That's why you're better off sketching relevant factions and characters to establish what they want to do, how, and how they will react to player action. "Planning" works for a book.
>>97594895What? What are you talking about? How in the everloving fuck did you get from me saying "figure out how your worldbuilding affects players" to "don't worldbuild?"Are you straight up having a psychotic break, or are there words in there that you don't know the meaning of?
>>97594942You can just say that you don't want to elaborate instead of going full schizo rambling, but whatever.
>>97593609Is this from SAKE (TTRPG)? This screams like playing SAKE
>>97594946Anon seriously. You're claiming I said "don't worldbuild."That's the exact opposite of what I said.Are you having some emotional problems?
>>97594950Have you thought about clarifying your position instead of whatever you think you're doing?
>>97594966Anon my statement was>How does my worldbuilding interact with my playersIs a great source for material as you plan adventures and sessions.What's unclear? It doesn't just imply worldbuilding is happening. It necessitates it. You can't consider how your worldbuilding interacts with your players, unless you have done worldbuilding. It's a premise.
>>97594935So the source is your own assumption?>>97594940You just confirmed you never run anything at all. But thanks for at least being honest about it, I guess
>>97594983Different people run different games, anon. Someone having a different table than you doesn't mean they're a dreaded "nogames." Stop with this silly shit, please.
>>97594983Anon, I hope you're not the kind of guy that can't wrap his head around the fact that you can do things in different ways.
>>97594969Ok, then why argue against worldbuilding then? That's the part that is less clear.
>>97594969Anon, you got trolled. He'll continue to put words you haven't said into your mouth as long as you keep giving him attention.
>>97594985>>97594991I'd like to remind you that replying the same thing twice on two post doesn't make you sound convincing. It just reeks of failed attempt of brigading, since you are all on your own with this.All while completely ignoring what is even said in your direction.>>97594997Nta, but are you ESL, or simply in the 85-90 IQ range? Serious question, since you clearly and obviously don't understand simple English questionsAnd the question is - how the worldbuilding is interacting with the players? So far, you spend 10 (ten) posts deflecting that simple question.
>>97595012*Tags myself in *>>97594997Dude, worldbuilding is a part of TTRPGs. People get into that shit, not everything has to be a simple "enter dungeon, kill monsters, avoid traps, slay dragon, sell loot, rinse, and repeat. (Always Repeat.)" People like reasons on why they doing what they're doing in game, why the world is the way it is.Also when it comes to games, worldbuilding helps keeps players interested in the game and world. People aren't going to care much about "the Village hub" and tavern keep. However, they will be willing to care more about Riverside Traven and Lisa who runs it,
