Why Worldbuilding is Bad

Tony Vargas · Apr 20, 2018

Maxperson said:
If I didn't have things prepared in areas that they are not headed to, I would be very unprepared.

OK, that's just amusing.

Lanefan said:
That worldbuilding will have consequences in play, e.g. making it impossible to find a sage in a town that has none, is not in question.

What's in question is why this could ever possibly be seen as a bad thing...except by players who dislike not always getting what they want, for whom I have no sympathy and nothing more to say.

And we could be dismissed as cranky old grognards still mired in the hobby as it existed 30+ years ago, deserving of no sympathy and 'nuff said. ;P

Obviously, it could be a bad thing for a detail to already be ruled out that'd make a better game or better story (not just a better outcome for the PCs - for instance, conversely, you might have established there's no assassins in the town, then find the PC's actions would be a more than ample motivation for an NPC to hire one, unfortunately, the nearest assassin is days away and the PCs finish screwing the NPC over before he can get the message delivered).

Maxperson · Apr 21, 2018

Tony Vargas said:
OK, that's just amusing.

Why? If I didn't have stuff prepared, when they veered way off course from where they appeared to be headed, I'd have to improvise literally everything.

Ovinomancer · Apr 21, 2018

Maxperson said:
Why? If I didn't have stuff prepared, when they veered way off course from where they appeared to be headed, I'd have to improvise literally everything.

If you didn't have things prepared.... you'd be unprepared.

Maxperson · Apr 21, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
If you didn't have things prepared.... you'd be unprepared.

Which is true!

That's why I have things prepared. Running a game unprepared rarely works out well for me.

hawkeyefan · Apr 21, 2018

TheSword said:
Ah that makes sense. So by that token you are preparing only what you are likely to need because the party are likely to enter the temple of the death god and see his statue. You wouldn’t then need to plan the god of the harvest, the god of war or the god of watery depths. Then you’re adding mysterious hooks that can be dropped into the campaign later on creating the illusion of depth. Which hooks you pick up and follow can depend entirely on how you feel. I am in total agreement that’s an excellent way to prep.

I don’t get the impression that is the type of world building the original article is railing against. The author objects to fantasy writers effectively writing a campaign setting guide before they start on the meat and bones of the adventure. Others are arguing for comprehensive world building first just in case the campaign goes in that direction. That’s just my impression.

This is the main problem. The complaint that is being made in the article and in this thread is, overall, not about worldbuilding so much as it is about the GM predetermining every detail of the game world before play even begins. That’s a very specific instance of worldbuilding that I don’t think is typical of what people think of when they hear the word.

So what ends up happening is that you get one “side” made up if people defending their idea of what worldbuilding is, and the other “side” criticizizing the specific case of a GM predetermining everything about the setting ahead of time. And it just goes round and round because neither side is even in agreement on what is being discussed.

To take [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] as an example...he has said that he does not decide every detail ahead of time. In the case of the linrary, he even said it would be best to have a site like that at the ready to drop in wherever it may be needed. So even the strongest proponent of worldbuilding in this thread does not condone the extreme version sited in the OP.

At the other end of the spectrum you have [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] who admits to having some material ready ahead of time (some planets predetermined for his Traveller game, for example) so that he can drop them in as needed.

This library and these planets sound awfully similar in use and implementation.

The truth is thatthere is value in both approaches. Having prepared material helps a GM establish the setting and help create the story with the players’ input. Not committing so strongly to prepared material allows the GM to follow an unexpected path that may prove more interesting for the game.

But instead of acknowledging that there are strengths and weaknesses to both methods, everyone digs their heels in and picks a “side” and then argue different points at each other.

AbdulAlhazred · Apr 21, 2018

Lanefan said:
The impression I got from reading your ealier post was that you only needed one; and because of that there'd be no point building a whole world around it.

Well, I think complexity isn't really a limitation here. I didn't really consider it. We've been tending to talk about character's and their dramas in the singular, though its understood there is a whole party. Now, if the players want to ramify their activities into a greatly complex plotline, say where they start dealing with LOTS of NPCs and complex plans and etc. then I'm going to make the PLAYERS start to keep all that straight.

Hollywood oftentimes doesn't even try to be realistic. Further, Hollywood is always constrained by a length-of-show time limit that simply doesn't apply in RPGs.

That said, I don't mind Hollywood-style meetings in the game provided they're not too ridiculous. But if I know character A is at place X on a given date and character B is at place Y on that same date I know they're not going to meet.

More importantly, I need to know what effects or fallout the actions of one party might have on another; which sometimes mean I need to keep careful track of when things happen.

I think its useful to have an idea, so you can 'tell a story about it' and it isn't confusing to anyone. OTOH I've already stated that I'm not super big on the idea that we can really 'explain' things causally in the game world. Or that is, we CAN, but these explanations aren't in any sense canonical. 100 other stories could be told that would be equally plausible. So I don't feel like I HAVE to do some detailed analysis, or keep perfect account of everything.

An example from my current game: two independent parties, members of whom knew each other, running side-along both in real time (I was running two groups a week) and game time. Each was in a series of adventures that would, if followed up on, eventually take them to the same ruined city but on completely different missions and for completely different reasons; and there was a possibility they would meet. Even without that, the actions of whichever one got there first would likely affect the other based on a) what they had stirred up, and b) what they had done or left behind.

As it turned out, had the two parties been there simultaneously one would probably have been wiped out by the actions of the other: the mission goal of one was in part to explore a hill with an Acropolis on top of it, or so they thought; but when they got there the Acropolis and the top of the hill was gone, sheared off by the other party a month earlier in their blundering attempts to control a "flying castle" (actually a huge extraterrestrial vessel with half a hill hanging off of it!) they had got going. Fortunately what the other party sought was never in the Acropolis to begin with...

Missing someone by an hour is as good as a year, yes; but I want to know if they missed by an hour or hit by an hour. Even more relevant when the various parties have a common base of operations and have means of fast travel meaning people can potentially pop in at any time - I want to know who's "home" when.

It just doesn't matter so much to me. I mean, depending on the relationships between the characters in the two parties in your example, it might or might not be interesting if one put the other in danger. But I'd have it happen if it was dramatic and not completely outside of any reasonable timeline.

If a game world is to be presented "neutrally" then ideally it is designed without reference to any players at all...particularly if you either don't even know who your players will be yet (my usual situation) or are designing something to be used by multiple groups who may or may not be your own (i.e. this is something you're thinking of publishing).

And ideally the world should be neutral. By that I mean that Mt. Torgrath will still loom over the city's east flank regardless of who plays in the game; Borten the Barkeep will still be a surly old grouch whether the PCs are all Thieves or all Wizards or all Elves or whatever; Queen Terriann will still be in her 6th year on the throne having succeeded King Gorund on his death due to old age, no matter what night of the week the sessions get played; and no matter who or what you or your PC are if you send said PC into the Docklands alleys without a few levels under its belt it's very likely going to lose its belt pouch...and possibly its life.

Where I don't worry much about PC backstory until it's clear said PCs will stick around a while...which at low levels is by no means assured....and by the time that's happened oftentimes quite a bit of backstory has come out organically through run-of-play stuff.

It means the game world has some consistency and - for lack of a better word - "solidity" to it, somewhat like reality; rather than feeling like something from a dream that morphs itself to suit whatever the dream might be.

Lanefan

I don't think the setting need be 'dreamlike' in order to be tailored to suite the requirements of the people playing in it. I mean, last night I made up a whole bunch of elements to be used to create an adventure (for another GM who asked if I had any ideas). Now, THESE DAYS I wouldn't do that much structuring of things, but then again its OK to think up some elements that might be appropriate given the PCs/players in hand. My point is, I spent a pretty short time on this, and IMHO it was 'ready to play' in my current style. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't seem dreamlike or shallow. There are plenty of chances for things to be elaborated and it is just really a kind of map/outline of how things COULD go, but that's enough to backstop my ad libbing.

Greg K · Apr 21, 2018

Tony Vargas said:
Obviously, it could be a bad thing for a detail to already be ruled out that'd make a better game or better story (not just a better outcome for the PCs - for instance, conversely, you might have established there's no assassins in the town, then find the PC's actions would be a more than ample motivation for an NPC to hire one, unfortunately, the nearest assassin is days away and the PCs finish screwing the NPC over before he can get the message delivered).

To each their own. Personally, I don't see it as an issue. If I were to want assassins going after the party, maybe someone related to the NPCs goes to the guild and hires them several days later (or simply pays someone to track down and kill the characters). Maybe, someone goes to an official and the official sends out assassins. Maybe, a more powerful related NPC takes it upon themselves to track down the party with the help of allies.

Hell, in one campaign, after the party crossed the only Wizard's Guild and killed a few low level members, I didn't have assassin's hired by them show up until several sessions later. When they did, they were accompanied by one or two guild wizards. If the party escaped or killed them them, another group would show up at a later date. It was about a year or two in real life play before the party found out how they were being tracked and it went back to the thief stealing a guild ring off one of the dead wizards on the second session of play (which was a continuation of the first night).

Maxperson · Apr 21, 2018

hawkeyefan said:
This is the main problem. The complaint that is being made in the article and in this thread is, overall, not about worldbuilding so much as it is about the GM predetermining every detail of the game world before play even begins. That’s a very specific instance of worldbuilding that I don’t think is typical of what people think of when they hear the word.

So what ends up happening is that you get one “side” made up if people defending their idea of what worldbuilding is, and the other “side” criticizizing the specific case of a GM predetermining everything about the setting ahead of time. And it just goes round and round because neither side is even in agreement on what is being discussed.

This isn't even possible. The most detailed setting out for D&D, the Forgotten Realms, has maaaaaybe 5% of the world pre-determined. A city the size of Waterdeep would have dozens of inns and taverns, but we know a small handful of them. It tells us the names of the Lords of Waterdeep, but only a few names of the rest of the nobility. People on the other side like to accuse us of pre-determining everything for some reason, but it's far from true.

But instead of acknowledging that there are strengths and weaknesses to both methods, everyone digs their heels in and picks a “side” and then argue different points at each other.

I end up defending against the misrepresentations of the other side more than anything else. It's a real shame, since I'd rather just have a discussion. Discussions are hard when the one side refuses to understand what people on the other side are trying to say.

Kaodi · Apr 21, 2018

In one of the few in person games I ever got to play in we started playing Age of Worms in Greyhawk. I do not remember how I gained access to this information because I am not a big setting buff (for financial reasons) but I decided that I was going to be a Priest of Vathris, the hero-deity that was slain by Kyuss. I think I might have been a bit of a killjoy because my character was in a little too deep with the "anguish" aspect.

But I had a goal for that campaign which never could have actually lasted long enough for me to complete it: I had this idea that I am a bit hazy on now but I think it was: I would obtain the black spear that the distraught Vathris carries around with him which Kyuss used to kill him, then I would cast miracle with some grand statement in conjunction with striking the killing blow against Kyuss and then Vathris would be reborn in my character's body.

This idea would have been hella epic if I could have ever pulled it off. And it was an idea that was born as a natural extension of the world of Greyhawk. I probably never would have come up as anything so dramatic as a player in a generic, unspecified world. I am a bit of a fan of the idea that creativity is taking this out of the box and then building something with what you have left. Worldbuilding is an enabler of this kind of creativity. Of course some people will not need or want it. But some will.

pemerton · Apr 21, 2018

Imaculata said:
No how matter good your improvisation skills are, you are not going to end up with a very complex plot that still is consistent with all the facts. There is a limit to how deep you can make the plot when you're just 'winging it'. There are some things you have to think up in advance, before running the campaign, and that is world building.

<snip>

The way all of these plot points fall into place... I wouldn't be able to do that, unless I first wrote it all out. And I am skeptical that other DM's would be able to craft a similar cohesive plot line, unless they first took the time to do some worldbuilding.

Here are four actual play posts:

* The PCs travel back in time and rescue an apprentice wizard trapped in a mirror;

* The PCs, now in the present, dining with a baron whose trusted advisor is (secretly) their mortal enemy, notice that portraits of the baron's family include women who resemble the apprentice, one of whom turns out to be the baron's niece;

* The PCs "rescue" the niece, and in the course of doing so promise Kas to track down the rescued apprentice;

* The PCs, many levels later, encounter Kas and the apprentice (Jenna Osternath) fighting outside the Mausoleum of the Raven Queen, and join in.

Degrees of intricacy/complexity/depth are hard to judge, but I think that is a series of interlinked events with a reasonable amount of each.

Imaculata said:
World building also makes it possible to foreshadow later revelations. Because you have to first know what you're planning to reveal later on in the campaign, in order to foreshadow things properly. Those are the "AHAH!" moments for your players in a campaign, where all of a sudden all the puzzle pieces of the plot fall into place.

Well, as my posts show, this can be done in reverse, by building later episodes on earlier ones.