Sci-Fi Game: How Much Worldbuilding Is Too Much?

[Freelance GM]

I'm designing a setting for a near-future Sci-Fi sandbox game.

The tech level is at sort of an Avatar/Ender's Game-ish level. All of the technology in the setting is at least scientifically plausible, and faster-than-light travel has not been invented yet. There have been no confirmed sightings of sentient extraterrestrials.

Pretty much, the player's slightly-damaged sleeper ship arrives at its destination over a hundred years late. The other colonists (who got there on-time) have managed to build a single sprawling metropolis, and install a corporate-controlled government in the mean time. Colonists who disagreed with corporate rule have started a few other settlements, but the planet is still mostly alien wilderness. The players arrive, and find out that they're now stranded and unemployed on an alien planet, and must make a living doing odd jobs within the city, the surrounding wilderness, and the other planets in the system.

The players won't be leaving that solar system, so I've been trying to flesh it out as much as I can, and I'm wondering where the cutoff point for "you're doing too much work" is. There's one Earth-like planet, but I want it to feel distinctly alien- like the breathable atmosphere and similar climate are where the similarities end.

In my attempts to also make the setting as believable as possible, I feel like I've gotten bogged down in research.
I've found myself mapping food webs for alien ecosystems, researching all kinds of theoretical science, like laser communication in space, antimatter, even studying how the early American colonies were built. As a result, very little actual planning for the game is being done.

I'm not new to DM'ing, but I haven't run this kind of Sci-Fi game before. When is the point where the world is "built enough" that you just move on to actually planning the adventures? Is it better to get the world as detailed as possible before the game starts, since it's so different from Earth, or to just improvise as the story demands?

[Yora]

The rule of thumb for unnecessary worldbuilding is usually "If it does not affect the descisions the players will be making, they won't care about and not remember it".
That the sap of a certain tree can be made into a cure for a rare poison is irrelevant information, unless the players know that they could run into this kind of poisonous animal. The name of a famous explorers ship won't matter to the players unless they go looking for that ship. And of course, the players need to know that a piece of information will be useful for them before they are being told that information. If you tell them a little detail but only two hours later they learn what that information is useful for, they won't even remember that it had been mentioned.

[BootStrapTommy]

There is no such thing as too much worldbuilding.



I've found myself mapping food webs for alien ecosystems, researching all kinds of theoretical science, like laser communication in space, antimatter, even studying how the early American colonies were built. Communication: quantum entanglement. When two atoms are quantumly entangled, what happens to one effect the other. Like instantaneous interuniverse Morse code. Sophisticated enough computers and you have intergalactic text messaging that is instantaneous, despite distance. Potentially even data transfer.

[Yora]

Communication: quantum entanglement. When two atoms are quantumly entangled, what happens to one effect the other. Like instantaneous interuniverse Morse code. Sophisticated enough computers and you have intergalactic text messaging that is instantaneous, despite distance. Potentially even data transfer.

In sci-fi, yes. Though the concept is based on a false understanding of quantum entanglement.

[Zap Dynamic]

There is no such thing as too much worldbuilding.

I'm mostly with Yora on this one. On the one hand, you should build the world as much as you'd like. On the other, anything you create that the players don't experience could be for naught. For me, it's often helpful to work on background information the players will never see because it enriches my ability to narrate as the GM (and usually makes the setting more internally consistent) but I try to tie as much of it as I can to the action of the players. Building on what Yora said, lore about something like an old explorer's ship can add a lot to the world but I would want to make it something the players discover in the course of play--as a result of their actions (that's the critical part, their actions/agency)--rather than something they'd only learn about by, say, looking it up in an IC library.

[lothofkalroth]

First off, I'd like to say that it's incredibly refreshing to see someone designing a setting like that. No clone armies, no wacky sulphur-breathing aliens, no magitech, but also not so hyper-realistic as to be depressingly boring. Kudos, seriously.

I completely agree with several other people on this thread - there really isn't such a thing as too much worldbuilding, in a general sense. I would, however, ask yourself what it is you want out of this? If you only want this world so you can run games with friends, then yes, you might want - as Yora said - to limit your creative enterprise to the things your players will actually interact with or lore/fluff that informs the setting/story/aesthetic.

If, however, you want to open this up to the public and publish it as a campaign setting, graphic novel, book, show etc. then there is literally no end to the amount of worldbuilding you can and should do. Fans love that. They eat that up like candy. Think of all the most successful fanchises and how intricate and detailed their universes are. And more importantly for what you're trying to do, think of the best sci-fi and how the level of background detail is what allows for total immersion. Does the fact that fremen have a genetic adaptation that closes their wounds quickly to conserve water actually have any meaningful effect on the plot of Dune? Of course not, but the little details like that allow a reader/player/viewer to lose themselves in the well-crafted world you've spun around them. Do we need to know which companies make the heavy digging equipment in Red Mars? No, but it adds a level of realism to a story. The fact that there are two competing empathy tests in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep doesn't change how the story progresses, but it makes the setting feel more like real life.

Detail-oriented worldbuilding is great for two main reasons:

1. It gives you and your players details that act as jumping-off points for campaign ideas and character design.

and

2. You end up learning all sorts of things about the real world in the process. For instance, I've actually been brewing a relatively similar setting to yours (colonists on an earthlike planet, heavy focus on sociopolitical forces, ecology, and all that jazz) and was disappointed to learn that, as Yora pointed out, the idea of using quantum entanglement for communication is a red herring. Never stop learning, and by the same token, never stop worldbuilding.

But maybe take a break to go out in the sunshine now and again. Gotta get your daily supply of sweet lady vitamin D.

Hope this Helps!

[jqavins]

In my attempts to also make the setting as believable as possible, I feel like I've gotten bogged down in research. I've found myself mapping food webs for alien ecosystems, researching all kinds of theoretical science, like laser communication in space, antimatter, even studying how the early American colonies were built. As a result, very little actual planning for the game is being done.
Boged down? It looks to me like you're haing fun with research. If so, feel free to keep it up.

I think there's a lot of personal variation, both in how much world buildding the GM finds rewarding and how much fluffy richness players appreciate. As a player, I like lots. As a GM I'd like to do lots, it's really fun for a while, but don't have the patience to go as far as I'd like.

There is a downside to lots of world building, to which you alluded; it takes time that you're not putting into planning adventures or playing them. Do you have players chomping at the bit to get started? That would be a good reason to cut the world building short.

You can push it into irrelevance, as Yora explained, but his/her examples may not be good ones, depending on you players' tastes for fluff. Having a party member poisoned and thinking "Damn, what was that tree with the antidote sap?" is fun, in a streeful sort of way. As for the explorer's ship, just remember Chekov: "Botany Bay? Botany Bay! Oh no!! We've got to get out of here!" Need I say more?

[BootStrapTommy]

In sci-fi, yes. Though the concept is based on a false understanding of quantum entanglement.
Except using the no-communication theorem to deduce the impossibility of superluminal (FTL) communication is circular, since the no-communication theorem assumes that the system is a composite system. Begging the question, in other words.

But I'm not a physicist. But it is my understanding that there remains the theoretical possibility that quantum entanglement can produce FTL communication. Scientist are even receiving funding for practical experimentation in this regard. Until they return with results, however, the theoretical possibility remains.

[jqavins]

Except using the no-communication theorem to deduce the impossibility of superluminal (FTL) communication is circular, since the no-communication theorem assumes that the system is a composite system. Begging the question, in other words.
Gosh, thanks. It's been ages since I've seen anyone use "begging the question" correctly. Thank you, thank you. That made my day.

[Freelance GM]

First off, I'd like to say that it's incredibly refreshing to see someone designing a setting like that. No clone armies, no wacky sulphur-breathing aliens, no magitech, but also not so hyper-realistic as to be depressingly boring. Kudos, seriously.


Glad you liked the idea! I was in the mood for something different, and none of the Sci-Fi RPG's I've encountered do a great job tackling that side of science fiction. Except maybe Traveler, but I don't have the books or the math skills for that game.



I would, however, ask yourself what it is you want out of this? If you only want this world so you can run games with friends, then yes, you might want - as Yora said - to limit your creative enterprise to the things your players will actually interact with or lore/fluff that informs the setting/story/aesthetic.


It is just for the game. However, about half the group tends to get incredibly interested in the lore and fluff. One week in, they're already asking me questions I did not readily have answers for regarding the quality of life in the colony. So, being more thorough than usual is typically a pretty safe decision when I plan games.


But maybe take a break to go out in the sunshine now and again. Gotta get your daily supply of sweet lady vitamin D.


Gah, I knew I was forgetting something!


Boged down? It looks to me like you're haing fun with research. If so, feel free to keep it up.

You can push it into irrelevance, as Yora explained, but his/her examples may not be good ones, depending on you players' tastes for fluff. Having a party member poisoned and thinking "Damn, what was that tree with the antidote sap?" is fun, in a streeful sort of way. As for the explorer's ship, just remember Chekov: "Botany Bay? Botany Bay! Oh no!! We've got to get out of here!" Need I say more?

The research is fun. The challenge now is balancing it with actual planning. Now that the game's started I've got about a week to plan each session, as well as all of the lore that session touches on. Including the lore that session slightly brushes on its way to the relevant fluff.

But, everyone's feedback has given me an idea on what I need to focus on. Pretty much, start with the most relevant fluff, and work outwards until I feel sufficiently prepared, or it's Tuesday.

Thanks everyone! I may be back with more questions. If you all have any questions about how the game goes, feel free to ask, too.