Dungeon Master: How the World Acts

In general, the world itself is an important part of a session. However, at the big picture level there are a few different ways to handle creating worlds. As the Dungeon Master you don't want to railroad your players into a certain path but at the same time they shouldn't be the only actors in the game. Today, I will talk about the two main ones I see. In general, it boils down to one system where the world always reacts to the players and the other where characters have their own choices that they are making, meaning events will unfold without the players.

The Static World

There are many games I've played where the world stays the same and waits for the players to act. Naturally, this allows for a great amount of freedom as no planning goes out the window when the players try to do something outside the box (the world simply reacts). However, while it is easy to plan, this method also has a way of making the world seem stiff. There aren't any pressing matters outside the actions of the players (the Dungeon Master will think of those when they get to it). The non-player characters simply react to the actions of players instead of acting for themselves. The details for the characters are filled in as needed in reaction to the players' actions instead of being planned in advance. This also runs the risk of making mistakes, since the plan isn't thought up in advance. As the players talk to people, the Dungeon Master will need to fill in the gaps for the character in terms of back story, motivation and other elements needed to complete the reaction. However, in this case the characters are reacting to the players and so is the Dungeon Master.

The Non-player Characters as Actors

If the entire party just ceased to exist, the world will continue. It could be that the campaign is low key so their absence makes a small change. It could be that the disappearance of the players dooms the entire world eventually. Regardless, without the players, events will unfold a certain way. As a Dungeon Master, it is still important not to railroad the players. Instead, this approach is better thought of as creating the world and a general progression (it shouldn't be specific, or this ends up being railroading) for it without player involvement. The players are then put into this system and allowed to act as they would like. Hopefully, since the Dungeon Master hasn't planned out the entire path the players can take, they aren't being railroaded. They are merely put into a system of defined actors that have their own behaviours and given free rein to do as they wish. This also means that events will move forward if players do nothing. However, the exact interventions players can make to shift the path are not made. Naturally, to create the motivations, paths and everything else requires time and effort.

As a side note, the general path that events will take can be determined by using dice at the needed times. This will mean there will be certain events that will be very hard to shift or that will occur without player involvement, but you aren't sure or don't really care which path the story takes (sometimes, you have a bunch of paths and they all sound awesome). The key here is to keep it general and vague to avoid railroading. If the situation comes up, you are ready to roll. If the situation doesn't come up it isn't a big loss since all you have written down is one sentence.

Using Both as Needed

Treating every NPC as an actor and defining their history, motivation and general path takes time. It makes sense that not every NPC needs to be defined in such a way. In such a case the important characters can be treated as actors and defined a head of time. A low ranked guard probably won't have a big effect on the world and could probably be thought up on the spot (especially in a formal situation where they wouldn't be able to speak freely anyway). The captain, however, will probably be more important.

Example

As a quick example, take the below as an example of using both types.

• There are three groups all wanting control of an artifact (it cannot be destroyed).
• Currently the artifact is possessed by “The Defenders”, who simply want to guard it to ensure it isn't used. Their leader believes that any use of the artifact will end badly and so it needs to be protected at all costs. They are the strongest of the groups thanks to the skill of their personnel.
• A second group (“The Evil Ones”) will try to attack and take the artifact by force. Their leader is over confident of his group's abilities and brash. He wants to please his gods and wreaking havoc by using the artifact will accomplish that.
• A third group (“The Healers”) want the artifact in order to use it to undo the damage that was done during the war a few years earlier (if you need a number, take 32). Their leader is caring, sympathetic and believes in the greater good. However, he also believes that “The Defenders” are wrong and causing suffering.
• Without player involvement, “The Evil Ones” will attack “The Defenders” and try to take the artifact. Roll a D10 for “The Defenders” and a D8 for “The Evil Ones”. Higher number wins and destroys the side of the lower number. Subtract the number rolled by the loser from the dice max of the winner to determine their new dice. Round up to the next highest dice if the new number is not a valid dice (if the result is 0 or lower, the winner is also destroyed). This is their dice from now on. In the case of a tie, determine the new dice for each side as described above but the artifact remains in the possession of the defenders, whoever they may be at the time. If the dice of “The Defenders” drops below the dice of “The Healers” (they start with a D8), “The Healers” will attack. If “The Evil Ones” gain control of the artifact, “The Healers” will know and attack them (regardless of dice). Should “The Healers” gain control of the artifact, they will try to use it to heal the magic damage but actually make things worse, forcing the entire region to be abandoned. For all attacks without player involvement, use bolded text. Otherwise, use the dice to determine relative strengths of the two sides when setting up the fight.

In the above path, the players can do all sorts of things to skew the dice, try to change the actions of the groups (maybe they can convince “The Guardians”, or find a way that will actually work for “The Healers”) but without their involvement, they will be hearing about these events from shocked people and refugees.

People other than the leaders of the factions react to the players. Create the back stories and everything else as needed from player involvement.

Note: Using averages “The Defenders” will roll a 5.5 while “The Evil Ones” roll a 4.5. This means (10 – 4.5 = 5.5, rounds to D6) that “The Defenders” hold out but are left with a D6. Seeing an opportunity “The Healers” attack “The Defenders” (rolling a 4.5 against a 3.5). They win and use the artifact, rendering the region uninhabitable.

Conclusion

This piece ended up being longer than I originally planned, but I hope it got the ideas flowing. The big take away here is in deciding which characters the players will act without player involvement and which characters the players will only notice if they actively try to interact with them. The line isn't clear cut, since a merchant may not feature at all since the characters don't go to a certain city (this would be a reaction) or the players may still hear the gossip about how a merchant two cities over made a fortune selling high quality swords that he obviously couldn't afford to have bought (this would be something actively happening in the world without them). Still, I feel it is an important concept to consider.