Why Worldbuilding is Bad

Riley37 · Apr 18, 2018

MichaelSomething said:
An RPG is different from a TV show.

Thank you for that bold statement, which has never, ever before been used to counter any point made in a conversation about TRPGs or CRPGS and their relationship with their genre, source material, or setting. If only we'd known that, decades ago, back in the 1970s when the people playing "Bunnies and Burrows" expected every game session to be *exactly identical* to a screening of "Watership Down"! (Well, some of those sessions had popcorn and soft drinks, so it wasn't a total loss.)

MichaelSomething said:
I would use Tales of Equestria

Awesome! So what would it take, for you to answer the world building questions as if I'd asked them about "Tales of Equestria" instead of "GURPS: MLP"?

Unless "Tales" includes material for the "Fallout: Equestria" setting, then we might use some GURPS materials for Phase II. Nor would we be the first TRPGers to ever choose between (1) doing a story in a setting with the rules published for that setting, versus (2) home-brewing a GURPS implementation, and end up with the latter.

Caliburn101 · Apr 18, 2018

AbdulAlhazred said:
I don't really like to take this kind of position, because it feels to me like its saying effectively "you can't criticize this technique because there's this perfect version of it somewhere that avoids this problem." If its a problem, repeatedly, in real games in the real world, then IMHO its a problem with the technique! You may well avoid that problem by dint of expert play, but MANY campaigns have sunk upon that rock!

I mean, any absolutist pronouncements, like the initial premise of this thread, are always fraught. To say 'nobody should world build' is of course idiotic. I mean, I recommend against it and then I do it myself! I don't actually feel a need to be self-consistent or act in the 'best' way possible. I just do what I like to do, particularly when it comes to pastimes. So I wouldn't actually condone dismissing world building, but that isn't the same thing as saying its beyond criticism because people like it or it produces good results sometimes. IME No Myth play actually has fewer problems.

You miss the mark here I think. Nowhere have I said that worldbuilding is always good, it is indeed sometimes an issue. But no-one has proven the contention that 'worldbuilding is bad' per se. It has been stated, I have said it's wrong and then forced to justify my defence of it despite the fact no credible objective contention supports the proposition that it is bad.

So I am not saying you cannot criticise worldbuilding, but actually, no-one has actually done so, they have just criticised it and taken the position that it is the root cause of some problem or other which hasn't been effectively defined either.

Having a bad experience with a world building GM is unfortunate, but blaming the symptoms for disease is a mistake. Ever element of a game can be badly run, so it's the GM whose the issue. Not worldbuilding per se.

How do I know that - because I cannot precisely count now the games in which a well-realised gameworld has added to the game. I have never actually had your experience, and certainly not repeatedly enough to claim its a 'rule'.

It really isn't, and citing exceptions as the basis for supposed truisms is I think a mistake.

pemerton · Apr 18, 2018

Caliburn101 said:
I am not saying you cannot criticise worldbuilding, but actually, no-one has actually done so, they have just badmouthed it and taken the position that it is the root cause of some problem or other which hasn't been effectively defined either.

Saying that "worldbuilding is bad" is like saying that <insert random sport or game here> is bad. There are various sports and games I don't really care for (eg golf); but I've got no reason to doubt the sincerity of other's enjoyment of them (either as spectator, participant, or both).

What we can say is that there are connections between worldbuilding and other aspects of RPGing - especially if we are talking about worldbuilding by the GM, which I think is how it is normally thought of in the RPGing context.

For instance, worldbuilding by a GM mean that a certain amount of table time is spent having the GM tell the players stuff about the world that the GM has built - whether "big picture" stuff (about gods, politics, what counts as "normal" behaviour, etc) or "granular" stuff (like whether or not there is a shop of the sort the PC is looking for, or whether or not there is enough hay in the stable to be stacked up to the second-story window).

And it also means that some action declarations ("I search for a secret door", "I travel east until I reach the coast") have their outcome determined by the GM's worldbuilding (if the GM has decided that there is no secret door at that place, then the first PC can't succeed; if the GM has decided that there is an effectiely impassale range of mountains to the east, then the second PC can't succeed).

If the worldbuilding includes conflicts or struggles or drama that the GM (i) determines prior to and.or independently of the players and their PC building, and (ii) makes salient in play, then a further possible consequence is that some PCs are onlookers rather than participants in some of those conflicts or struggles or drama. (Eg this could happpen if the campaign starts in city X, and the big drama in city X as built by the GM is a struggle within a wizard's guild, but none of the PCs is a wizard.)

Whether these aspects of RPGing that can follow from extensive GM worldbuilding are good or bad seems like it would be relative to the tastes of particular RPGers.

Imaculata · Apr 18, 2018

pemerton said:
Whether these aspects of RPGing that can follow from extensive GM worldbuilding are good or bad seems like it would be relative to the tastes of particular RPGers.

And relative to the implementation by the GM.

happyhermit · Apr 18, 2018

pemerton said:
...
What we can say is that there are connections between worldbuilding and other aspects of RPGing - especially if we are talking about worldbuilding by the GM, which I think is how it is normally thought of in the RPGing context.

It seems like remarkably little is being said here though, despite all the words we spill.

pemerton said:
For instance, worldbuilding by a GM mean that a certain amount of table time is spent having the GM tell the players stuff about the world that the GM has built ...

And without "worldbuilding" by a GM a certain amount of table time is spent having the GM tell the players stuff about the world.

pemerton said:
And it also means that some action declarations ("I search for a secret door", "I travel east until I reach the coast") have their outcome determined by the GM's worldbuilding (if the GM has decided that there is no secret door at that place, then the first PC can't succeed; if the GM has decided that there is an effectiely impassale range of mountains to the east, then the second PC can't succeed).

Yep, most if not all people prefer some actions in some situations to be difficult or impossible. This happens through the rules of the game, table consensus, player veto, GM, etc.

pemerton said:
If the worldbuilding includes conflicts or struggles or drama that the GM (i) determines prior to and.or independently of the players and their PC building, and (ii) makes salient in play, then a further possible consequence is that some PCs are onlookers rather than participants in some of those conflicts or struggles or drama. ...

And if those conflicts/struggles/drama arise independently of worldbuilding (they do) the exact same "issues" exist. "Player driven" games without "worldbuilding" doesn't prevent some PCs from being "onlookers", neither does "worldbuilding" in and of itself.

Hussar · Apr 19, 2018

Ok, specific criticisms of world building:

It takes away time from the DM that would be better spent on developing adventures. We do not have unlimited time, and much of the world building stuff that goes on has little or nothing to do with the specific adventure that the players are doing.
Worldbuilding replaces more practical elements in supplements. I mentioned earlier the old Dragon Magazine Ecology of articles. Replacing them with a more here is a page of information and three to four pages of plug and play adventure material is far more useful to a DM.
Worldbuilding and particularly game lore, becomes deeply entrenched and virtually impossible to change. The Great Wheel and attending arguments is a perfect example of this. New ideas become judged, not on their actual value, but on how well they toe the line with what came before.
Much of world building is what I called before "Six page treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies". As more and more world building gets piled on, less and less of anything of actual use at the table gets shoved in.
DM's sometimes mistake world building for adventure building. The "Tour Des Realms" example that I brought up earlier where the campaign was more about showing off the DM's beautifully wrought urn rather than an actual adventure. ((Note, this probably applies double to fantasy genre novel writers))

How's that for specific criticisms?

MichaelSomething · Apr 19, 2018

Riley37 said:
Awesome! So what would it take, for you to answer the world building questions as if I'd asked them about "Tales of Equestria" instead of "GURPS: MLP"?

Unless "Tales" includes material for the "Fallout: Equestria" setting, then we might use some GURPS materials for Phase II. Nor would we be the first TRPGers to ever choose between (1) doing a story in a setting with the rules published for that setting, versus (2) home-brewing a GURPS implementation, and end up with the latter.

Wait, you were serious?

Well, if I was running an MLP RPG, the most likely scenario is that I would be running it for a bunch of Bronies. Therefore, I would assume they all would be at least fairly familiar with the world lore. If I were to task the PCs (pony characters) with helping in a Winter Wrap Up, they would already know more or less what was going on. As for the Mare in the Moon, it would be a knowledge/history check of some type for the PCs to know, but I would assume the players would know what it is already. I wouldn't have the campaign take place in Ponyville since that's the Mane 6's turf.

I would treat Fallout: Equestria as more Fallout then Equestria. Friendship; friendship never changes...

pemerton · Apr 19, 2018

happyhermit said:
And without "worldbuilding" by a GM a certain amount of table time is spent having the GM tell the players stuff about the world.

Well, if the game is run just like a "worldbuilt" one but with the GM building the world on the fly, that will be true.

But if the game is run "no myth" or simllarly, then that won't be true.

happyhermit said:
most if not all people prefer some actions in some situations to be difficult or impossible. This happens through the rules of the game, table consensus, player veto, GM, etc.

I was referring to a particular sort of impossibility, namely, impossibility that results from the GM making a decision, secret from the players, that there is no secret door to be found; or the GM making a decision, independently of the players, that in this land there is an impassable mountain range to the east.

The effect of these sorts of decisions is that the GM is (to some extent, the degree of which depends on the details of the case) shaping the outcomes of play in advance.

I have no idea whether or not "most people" like this. I know that all don't, because I don't and I'm one of the people. I think there are some other people who don't like it either, because they wrote RPGs designed to be run in a "no myth" or similar fashion.

And whether or not we people are numerous or not, as I said, this is a particular outcome of worldbuiding which has a definite inpact on the RPG experience, and it's an impact that I personally regard as bad.

happyhermit said:
if those conflicts/struggles/drama arise independently of worldbuilding (they do) the exact same "issues" exist. "Player driven" games without "worldbuilding" doesn't prevent some PCs from being "onlookers", neither does "worldbuilding" in and of itself.

If the GM writes the dramas prior to play and/or independently of the players, the players have to follow the GM's hooks or else be spectators. If the players establish the dramas and hook the GM, then the dynamic of play is quite different. This, again, is a real impact that worldbuilding can have, and personally I don't like it.

Lanefan · Apr 19, 2018

Hussar said:
Ok, specific criticisms of world building:

For fun, let's see if I can counter these:

It takes away time from the DM that would be better spent on developing adventures. We do not have unlimited time, and much of the world building stuff that goes on has little or nothing to do with the specific adventure that the players are doing.

It moves this work from during play to before play starts. You still need to know where the adventures are located, what's around them, where the nearby towns are, what the terrain is like, the distances involved, and a few boatloads of other stuff - might as well have this all nailed down ahead of time. Then, even if you decide to drop an adventure into a somewhat random place later you've already got all the surrounding stuff you need, rather than having to do it all (and record it all!) on the fly.

Worldbuilding replaces more practical elements in supplements. I mentioned earlier the old Dragon Magazine Ecology of articles. Replacing them with a more here is a page of information and three to four pages of plug and play adventure material is far more useful to a DM.

This applies only to prepublished worlds, I guess. What we're talking about here is mostly concerning homebrew worldbuilding, I think; and if a homebrewer wants to write Ecology Of... articles for all the creatures in her world then more power to her. I ain't gonna do it.

Worldbuilding and particularly game lore, becomes deeply entrenched and virtually impossible to change. The Great Wheel and attending arguments is a perfect example of this. New ideas become judged, not on their actual value, but on how well they toe the line with what came before.

Again this seems more relevant to pre-published worlds than homebrew. Yes homebrew lore becomes entrenched too, but that's a good thing: it means the world is gaining traction with the players and that you've probably done it right.

Much of world building is what I called before "Six page treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies". As more and more world building gets piled on, less and less of anything of actual use at the table gets shoved in.

This is always a risk, but an acceptable one. Any DM building her own world is going to tailor her write-ups to her own interests and gloss over things of little interest to her.

For example: I've written up detailed rules for ship-to-ship naval combat, because I like that sort of stuff and have a bit of knowledge. But anything to do with horses? Don't ask me...

DM's sometimes mistake world building for adventure building. The "Tour Des Realms" example that I brought up earlier where the campaign was more about showing off the DM's beautifully wrought urn rather than an actual adventure.

World-building and adventure-building can sometimes go hand in hand - as a part of building the world you can also come up with ideas for what would be threatening it that the PCs might have to deal with. Having a solid history for your world is hugely helpful for this!

And if a DM is smart about it (and if the world is any good!) the world will quietly show itself off during the run of play without the DM having to push it at all.

How's that for specific criticisms?

How's that for answers?

Lanefan

Lanefan · Apr 19, 2018

pemerton said:
Well, if the game is run just like a "worldbuilt" one but with the GM building the world on the fly, that will be true.

But if the game is run "no myth" or simllarly, then that won't be true.

Technically, it won't. But the same amount of time - or more - will be spent by the players asking for details and information about the game world so they can give their PCs some grounding.

I was referring to a particular sort of impossibility, namely, impossibility that results from the GM making a decision, secret from the players, that there is no secret door to be found; or the GM making a decision, independently of the players, that in this land there is an impassable mountain range to the east.

The effect of these sorts of decisions is that the GM is (to some extent, the degree of which depends on the details of the case) shaping the outcomes of play in advance.

I have no idea whether or not "most people" like this. I know that all don't, because I don't and I'm one of the people. I think there are some other people who don't like it either, because they wrote RPGs designed to be run in a "no myth" or similar fashion.

That despite their best attempts those RPGs still occupy no more than a very small niche in the hobby tells me all I need to know.

If the GM writes the dramas prior to play and/or independently of the players, the players have to follow the GM's hooks or else be spectators. If the players establish the dramas and hook the GM, then the dynamic of play is quite different. This, again, is a real impact that worldbuilding can have, and personally I don't like it.

False dichotomy.

The players can still establish the drama and hook the DM even in a DM-built world.

Also, assuming a reasonable DM the players always have a third option other than follow hooks or be spectators; and that's to have their PCs do something else within the gameworld, as in:

DM hook A: troglodytes are raiding a coastal village 20 miles south
DM hook B: lights have recently been seen in Mad Arcandia's old tower, long thought abandoned
DM hook C: rumours are growing within certain elements of the city's population that something's not right in the sewers - a monster has moved in?
DM hook D: orcs and goblins have started attacking caravans between here and Alphasia to the east
Players' response: See those mountains to the north on the map? We're going up there, get away from all this civilization and out into the true wildlands!
DM: runs the travel bit while quietly digging out Keep on the Borderlands...

Lanefan