Why Worldbuilding is Bad

pemerton said:

An adventure begins when the party enters a dungeon, and ends when the party has left the dungeon and divides up treasure.

Click to expand...

While I've used this same definition* forever for what represents an adventure I don't at all agree that there is an implication or suggestion or rule that there be no play outside these borders.

The "adventure" ends when they divide up treasure. Fine. But what do they spend their shares on; and where; and what do those who don't need training do while those who do need it do it; and how and when does the party decide what their next adventure will be; etc.

* - or close; as the end is when they get back to town and do treasury, I usually put the start as when they set out from town.

Part 4: The Adventure, beginning on p B19, is entirely about dungeon adventures. (The distinctive features of the Expert set are (i) rules for PCs above 3rd level, and (ii) wilderness adventuring.

Click to expand...

All that tells us is that the designers either a) hadn't considered non-dungeon adventuring at all yet when Basic was released; or more likely b) had considered it and were intentionally saving that part of the game for the next release.

What does it mean to say that elves are implied, but don't exist. If X implies Y, and X is the case, then so is Y. That's what implied means.

Click to expand...

I think what he's saying is that the lore tying Hobgoblins and Elves together forces one of two things to happen if you decide to use Hobgoblins in your game. Either:

1. You by default will also have Elves in your game world, as the lore states there is a known relationship between Hobs and Elves and thus the existence of one drags the other in by default; or
2. You have to specifically change the lore under "Hobgoblin" to remove the reference to Elves (and at your option put another species in their stead, or not).

Lanefan

Maxperson said:

"Worldbuilding is the process of constructing an imaginary world, sometimes associated with a whole fictional universe. ... Developing an imaginary setting with coherent qualities such as a history, geography, and ecology is a key task for many science fiction or fantasy writers"

Click to expand...

If this is worldbuilding, then B2 doesn't have it. There is no coherent history, geography or ecology in that module - I mean, there are dozens of powerful warriors (many superior to their human opponents) living a hour or two's walk away from a modestly defended keep. And with no obvious food supply for either side. And no coherent history either.

It's a framing for play, not something that answers the description you've quoted.

Maxperson said:

"Worldbuilding often involves the creation of maps, a backstory, and people for the world." which lists people and for RPGs would include monsters.

Click to expand...

Building a fence often involves the hammering of nails into wood. It doesn't follow that every time someone hammers a nail into some wood they're building a fence. Not all creating of maps is worldbuilding in the sense you yourself quoted.

Maxperson said:

"From a game-design perspective, the goal of worldbuilding is to create the context for a story. Consistency is an important element, since the world provides a foundation for the action of a story." which completely refute his argument that any part of building the world that deals with plot is not worldbuilding.

Click to expand...

Again, worldbuiding may have the goal of creating context. It doesn't follow that all context is worldubilding. And nor does it follow that all RPGing even has some context. There is no context to B1 other than "Let's earn some XP by exploring a dungeon." The context for S1 (Tomb of Horrors) is similar.

The context in B2 is marginally thicker, but only marginally. Likewise S2 (White Plume Mountain), which is - by the way - another single-building adventure.

Going back to Tomb of Horrors, contrast S1 with the Return to . . . version, which (I understand by reputation - I've never read it) does engage in a whole lot of worldbuilding, establishing all this backstory to try and make the dungeon actually make sense in the context of a consistent, coherent world. This seems to me to be exactly the sort of distinction [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is drawing, between adventure design and worldbuilding.

Imaro said:

You believe he's stating personal preference and applying these reasons to... himself only as opposed to making a general statement about why he believes world building is bad in general? If so that seems like an interesting way of interpreting his statement, and certainly not how I read it.

Click to expand...

hawkeyefan said:

I don't blame you for your preferences, and I'm sure they've formed as a result of your actual experiences, but I don't think they are universal enough to consider worldbuilding as bad. I just don't think it's all that different from any other tool the DM can use....they can be used effectively, or they can be abused.

Click to expand...

Let's take it, for the sake of argument, that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s comments are grounded primarily in personal preference grounded in personal experience.

Are [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s grounded in anything more robust or objective? I doubt it.

In other words, the claims worldbuilding is not bad is not grounded more firmly than the claim that worldbuilding is bad. So what's the objection to Hussar that doesn't apply to hawkeyefan? That he's hurting feelings?

EDIT:

Lanefan said:

Another reason in favour of up-front world-building, or at least an aspect of current game design that will tend to force some world-building by default, just occurred to me: the increasing importance of and emphasis on character backgrounds.

<snip>

one of the first questions to arise in any sort of character history or background is going to be "where am I from?"; and the second is likely to be a variant on "how did I get to <where the campaign starts>?"; and answering these questions - likely for a variety of races and classes within your starting party - is by default going to force a surprising amount of world-building.

<snip>

So, unless a DM wants to end up with something of a hodge-podge game world it would probably make sense to know ahead of time - at least in vague terms - what lives where and in relative proximity to what else.

Click to expand...

Here we have Lanefan saying that a reason in favour of worldbuilding is to avoid something of a hodge-podge game world.

Are all the posters who are outraged by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] expressing a strong opinion about the problems with worldbuilding now going to attack [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] for putting forward this reason (which clearly is nothing more than a preference grounded in his experience) as objective in some fashion? Or is it only those who dislike worldbuilding who get held to that standard?

hawkeyefan said:

Well, I would imagine most of us are used to a campaign style game

Click to expand...

Lanefan said:

If you're playing/running Isle of Dread as a one-off adventure then sure, what you say is absolutely true.

But I'm assuming in all cases here that these adventures are embedded in an ongoing campaign

Click to expand...

Well, if someone says "worldbuilding isn't necessary for RPGing", and you agree that it's not necessary for a one-shot, then why would you just assume they're talking about something else?

And now, once we've got that possibility on the table, what about a campaign in which the players turn up each session and either recommence where they left off in the current dungeon, or else find out which new adventure the GM has planned for today. That sort of campaign doesn't seem like it would need worldbuilding either.

And now, are there other sorts of campaigns that (unlike the one described in the previous paragraph) involve scenario-to-scenario continuity, but don't require worldbuilding? I can report from experience that there are.

Maxperson said:

Or else it's because it has no inherent property of good or bad, so calling it bad is wrong. You can dislike it, but it can't be bad. I can like it, but it can't be good.

Click to expand...

So I take it you think [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is wrong to have said there is a reason in favour of worldbuilding, namely, that otherwise there is a serious risk of a hodge-podge world. I assume you are going to take him to task for confusing "bad GMing" with some objective risk.

Or, alternatively, this whole pseuo-moralising attack on [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is nonsense. Yes, I think that's it.

Lanefan said:

I think what he's saying is that the lore tying Hobgoblins and Elves together forces one of two things to happen if you decide to use Hobgoblins in your game. Either:

1. You by default will also have Elves in your game world, as the lore states there is a known relationship between Hobs and Elves and thus the existence of one drags the other in by default; or
2. You have to specifically change the lore under "Hobgoblin" to remove the reference to Elves (and at your option put another species in their stead, or not).

Click to expand...

What does "you by default will also have elves in your game world" mean? Who is writing them in? Is the spirit of D&D descending on the land and making unbidden entries in my note book?

And riddle me this: in my OA game I used hobgoblins and never used elves. And I don't think the players were shocked by this. Where did I specificially change the lore? At what point in time?

You and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] are advocating a type of Platonism that can make sene in mathematics (if I say there are 4 hobgoblins, then it's true that the number of hobgoblins equals 2 squared, even if I never thought of that) as if it also applies in fiction. It's ridiculous, and creates nonsense ideas like someone specifically doing something that they never even turned their mind to.

Lanefan said:

We're also told that it's far from the nearest settlement and away from travelled routes, strongly implying that the PCs will not be easily able to go back to town and resupply and-or recruit new characters to replace their dead. Because of this, and because low-level D&D play tends toward resource management, a DM is going to want to know how many days it takes to travel from town to the adventure site so as to monitor the PCs' food supply

Click to expand...

Which GM are you talking about? You might want to do this. Nothing in the Moldvay Basic rules implies that a GM might do tjhis.

Lanefan said:

The "adventure" ends when they divide up treasure. Fine. But what do they spend their shares on; and where; and what do those who don't need training do while those who do need it do it; and how and when does the party decide what their next adventure will be; etc.

Click to expand...

Because B1 is an introductory module, Mike Carr has a lot of GMing tips at the start of the module. But none of them deal with the stuff you mention. Here is the advice on resting:


Notice that it is not assumed that exit from the dungeon will be trivial, as there are various features of the dungeon that mean the PCs may not be able to find their way out without need to sleep first.

Again, it's obvious that you wouldn't run a game this way. But Mike Carr's advice to new GMs clearly contemplates running a game in which nothing in the gameworld is established except for the dungeon.

Lanefan said:

All that tells us is that the designers either a) hadn't considered non-dungeon adventuring at all yet when Basic was released; or more likely b) had considered it and were intentionally saving that part of the game for the next release.

Click to expand...

The next release - Expert - included wilderness adventuring. So did the AD&D DMG, which was published before either Moldvay Basic or Cook/Marsh Expert.

But the point of my posts isn't to discuss commercial publication strategy. It's to point out that there is a perfectly respectable, well-known, approach to D&D adventuring in which (i) the setting is nothing but a single building or underground complex, and (ii) there is no worldbuidling beyond this.

pemerton said:

On the other thread, when I've suggested this is one thing that worldbuilding is for, there has been a lot of disagreement. Most posters on that thread seem to deny that one function of worldbuilding is to establish stuff for the GM to tell to the players.

Click to expand...

No, you referred to some "Choose your own Adventure Game"... which is not the same as what I said and a mis-characterization of the playstyle.

Hussar said:

Yeah, this was fun, but, now it's time to let this one die.

I've made my points, you can agree or disagree as you like.

To me, world building and world builders have taken over the hobby to the degree that it has driven me largely out of it. I almost never buy any products anymore because most of the products are geared almost entirely for world builders. I'm quite happy in our group because our group gets it - get to the point and quit faffing about.

When this thread started, some ten years or more ago, I was in a very different group and was so burned out by all the world building stuff. I'm still burned out on it today. I haven't picked up a fantasy novel in years for exactly this reason. And, well, it does help me to choose DM's to be honest. If the DM's description of his game world starts with something like "Thousands of years ago..." I'm taking a hard pass.

Click to expand...

I think you are way over-estimating the number of world builders in the hobby. Again, we live in a time where there are so many different kinds of RPGs to choose from, and so many different groups consciously shooting for their own style of play, people can connect to what type of style they prefer pretty easily. Plus there is now online play, so it is much easier to get a session going. I think there is always going to be a mainstream approach, and I learned the hard way when 4E came out, what WOTC is offering won't always be what I want to play. Once I stopped worrying about what WoTC was doing and looked around to see what other people were doing with nearly identical core systems, I had a much easier time.

I can appreciate that you feel like a style of play you strongly dislike has overtaken things. I don't share your conclusion, but I understand the perspective. You can get bitter about that, and try to destroy the play style you are angry with, or you can help show people an alternative approach. But if you go around attacking something people consider to be an essential tool, and getting as worked up about it as you seem to be, I promise you, your following is going to be much smaller than it otherwise would be. For all I know, you have some great techniques and tools you've developed in service to the approach you are advocating for. But if you have, me and the others haven't noticed, because we're reacting to your negative comments about world building (which is an important underpinning in most of our games, and we can assure you, we are not using it for the jerk-like reasons you attribute it to).

pemerton said:

It's Moldvay Basic. The game starts at the dungeon entrance. If the group wanted to, I guess they could describe the trip from the town if they wanted. But they don't have to. And even if they do, it's just free narration.

From B3, a paragraph or two below the quote you posted:

An adventure begins when the party enters a dungeon, and ends when the party has left the dungeon and divides up treasure.​

Part 4: The Adventure, beginning on p B19, is entirely about dungeon adventures. (The distinctive features of the Expert set are (i) rules for PCs above 3rd level, and (ii) wilderness adventuring.

Part 8: Dungeon Master Information opens, on p B51, by saying that

Before players can take their characters on adventures into dungeons, the DM must either create a dungeon or draw its map, or become familiar with one of TSR's dungeon modules.​

A group might use the Moldvay Basic rules and extrapolate beyond a dungeon. But the rules very clearly contemplate adventures that invovle no setting, and no worldbuilding, beyond a single (probably underground) building.

Click to expand...

Yes, Moldvay Basic doesn't give you the tools to have an adventure in a city, but they do exist in Moldvay Basic. The portion I quoted says that they do.

What does it mean to say that elves are implied, but don't exist. If X implies Y, and X is the case, then so is Y. That's what implied means.

Click to expand...

Implied just means that the existence is implied, not that the existence is a fact. In essence, it's a very strong hint, but not a guarantee. For instance, from what I say I can imply that every person I see is a jerk. That doesn't actually make every person I see a jerk.

Lanefan said:

I think what he's saying is that the lore tying Hobgoblins and Elves together forces one of two things to happen if you decide to use Hobgoblins in your game. Either:


1. You by default will also have Elves in your game world, as the lore states there is a known relationship between Hobs and Elves and thus the existence of one drags the other in by default; or
2. You have to specifically change the lore under "Hobgoblin" to remove the reference to Elves (and at your option put another species in their stead, or not).

Click to expand...

3. The lore is wrong. Elves are mythical and hobgoblins hate something that doesn't exist.

If I ask you, "What are you smoking right now?", I'm implying that you are high. That doesn't mean that you actually are high. The hobgoblin lore implies elves exist. That doesn't mean that elves do exist.

pemerton said:

On the other thread, when I've suggested this is one thing that worldbuilding is for, there has been a lot of disagreement. Most posters on that thread seem to deny that one function of worldbuilding is to establish stuff for the GM to tell to the players.

Click to expand...

Because that's not the purpose. The purpose is to create a setting to play the game in. Exploration is one part of game play, but that's not the purpose of worldbuilding. As an example, the purpose of building a house is for someone to live inside of it. That doesn't mean that the person won't also look around the new house to learn all it has to offer.