Why Worldbuilding is Bad

happyhermit

Adventurer
And that's a fair criticism. World building, is, in my mind, bad, because I take all the elements of setting building that I don't like and don't think are needed and label that "world building".

OTOH, the reverse is true. If we simply say that anything to do with building a setting is world building, then, of course world building is a good thing. It's all in how people draw the distinctions. I tend to not buy into the idea that setting building and world building are the same. Every game needs a setting. Not every game needs world building.

Say I don't like broccoli, and I don't like being forcefed, and I think twinkies are unhealthy (bad), and I don't like how food can make me fat. That doesn't mean food is bad, or even that I don't like food. It makes a lot more sense to me to talk about the actual things I don't like rather than trying to redefine "food" as the stuff I don't like about food.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Not really. I've played in lots of them over the past thirty years or so. I've obviously had fun.

Thing is, the "feel you've fully explored the setting" is not something I've ever been interested in. Don't care. Nor, IME, do players care in the slightest either.

I think there are players who DO have fun with that, but at the same time I'm not sure that its sheer exploration of pre-generated world details that makes things interesting. Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with 'finding out stuff', but its only an element of 'doing stuff'. The last character I ran for any substantial length of time was one who's ambition was to build his own kingdom. So he found a ruined castle in an area that he thought might be strategic but which was currently outside any established claims. This obviously required some exploration, some evicting of existing tenants, further evicting of each new DM generated nasty badguy who, for some reason, kept re-occupying the place, and in between bouts of that exploring more areas to establish some trade routes which he hoped would be more direct than existing ones, etc.

Honestly, I started to feel at the end of this campaign (it broke up due to some people losing interest etc) that we were just treading water against an endless stream of GM directed attempts to thwart whatever I was trying to accomplish. Like "no, putting a new kingdom there doesn't comport with my mental image of what the map should look like" or something. Instead of moving on from "established one outpost" to expansion, building up trade, increasing the population, political and social issues, etc. it just bogged on an endless series of big bads that undid everything I accomplished in scene 1 and made me repeat it in scene 2 (except with nastier monsters).

Anyway, EXPLORATION itself was not THAT interesting. It was fun at times in the sense of finding a way to implement a plan. Now, this was a very trad campaign with a map that got drawn up WAY back 20+ years ago and reused again and again. Imagine what would happen with this concept in No Myth Story Now! The possibilities for building a kingdom would be endless, not the marginal plan I was forced to accept as being the only available spot on the map. Exploration would then be an exercise of discovery and authorship of new elements in support of the Kingdom idea. Some would no doubt make it harder, I'm not talking about it being a cakewalk, but the harder could then be in forms that were most interesting, reflected the agendas of the OTHER players (because that was a big area as well, we had to spend 75% of our time on the other 3 players stuff, though it sometimes DID overlap). Plus, some of the adventures seemed more like "the GM dreamed something up and felt like running it" than something that really engaged our specific interests directly.

I will say that it was all reasonably fun and I'm not complaining. OTOH it was not like it was a vastly awesome campaign. It felt a lot like 'fantasy world mundanity'. There were some cool moments, but I wasn't blown away. All the lore and whatnot of the setting didn't particularly seem to be adding anything incredible to it. Mostly I tried to ignore it. I wanted to get on with my agenda!
 

Clearly players do care, and quite a bit, or it wouldn't keep being brought up here in these threads. YOU may not care, and the players YOU play with may not care, but other players very obviously do care about exploring the setting.

Again though, do they care about the setting for the sake of the setting, or do they care about what is brought to the table in terms of what their characters are going to experience and what choices they have?

Now, I can sort of imagine some player somewhere who's great joy in life is imagining his character wandering through dusty libraries unearthing obscure facts and endlessly applying them to some scheme or other, or to produce the solution to some profound issue. It isn't impossible, and that MIGHT (I say MIGHT because it isn't really established) benefit from some sort of very elaborate structure of lore. Still, I haven't run into that player yet, in 40+ years. I've been in campaigns where there was a scene, perhaps a critical one, where some revelation of some 'lore' produced the logic/lampshade for XYZ to happen. I think you could say that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s scene in the Raven Queen's Mausoleum falls into that category. Notably this happened in a 'Low Myth' environment!
 

Dude, I just said I loved clocks and you've spent quite a lot of effort trying to make sure everyone knows that skill challenges are just as good. Okay? You win? SCs are just as good?

I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. I was really just digging into the concept a little to see how it 'ticks'. I think its interesting. I mean there isn't much other reason, for me at least, to post except to think about game design and GMing ideas and concepts mostly. I was happy that you responded to my initial comment and it was cool! ;)

Thanks.
 

?? The only problems were that our group only lasted to about level 7 I think before disbanding and that even if it had gone on I would have had to survive for another 13 levels to get to the point where I would be in a position to do it. You fight Kyuss at the end of Age of Worms I think?

I don't know, I never read it or played it. Guess I'm weird that way, I've skipped MOST of the pre-authored stuff in D&D. Never played in FR, DL, etc. Played a character in, and ran, a few WoG things, and an OA that COULD possibly be Kara-Tur, but maybe isn't. Ran some of the early classic modules, that's about it.

Anyway, sure, and this is sort of getting to my point, that 'AP type' games (what I called Wizard of Oz Gaming) structures things in a way that is designed to run you through all the material, not to focus on the stuff that you WANT to do. Now, maybe the game you were in really just couldn't have developed enough to get to where you wanted in the time allotted and maybe the pacing was conducive to what OTHER players wanted as well, I can't say.

Story Now games do tend to be less roundabout and often less dragged out in terms of getting to the 'meat' of the thing. In other words, its less about 'surviving to 20th level' and more about 'how do we fight Kyuss?', which might REQUIRE getting to level 20, but maybe not if the GM is a little more flexible (IE maybe 12th level is enough).

Now, one objecting to 'maybe 12th level is enough' would be "but lots of major NPC figures would then be capable of doing it", but TO ME that's an argument against world building!

I would also observe that classic D&D is geared towards creating a very hard road to the top levels. One that requires a long time and a lot of getting ganked and going back to square one (at least in the most classic default mode of 1e or even 2e). It isn't really a very good fit for Story Now in that sense. This is one reason that my own personal game rules don't work in the classic D&D advancement anymore. Advancement is more tied to the fiction, so when "epic concerns" become the focus of the game, the characters evince "epic traits" to match them!
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Again though, do they care about the setting for the sake of the setting, or do they care about what is brought to the table in terms of what their characters are going to experience and what choices they have?

It's both. As a player I like to change the areas of the world I am adventuring in so that I can experience new things that the setting has to offer, also known as exploring the setting. The experiences and choices color and are colored by what is going on around me. My players seem to also enjoy that sort of thing since they go out of their way to do just what I do.

The story will unfold differently in the Magocracy of Thay than it would in the free city of Waterdeep, even if the PCs are seeking and doing essentially the same things in both locations. Exploration of the setting is an important part of the game we play.
 

My point was that the NPC not being able to go get an assassin *at the time*, because there were no assassin's in town and the nearest assassins were days away was not a big deal to me, because assassins could be brought in later if it made sense keeping within the "world building that had been done prior. To some people having world building and maintaining verisimilitude within that structure is a bad thing. To those like myself, it is something desired. The world building defines the setting on a large scale and answers certain questions ahead of time (what is the geography? What is the planar cosmology? Whom are the deities and how active are they (if there are deities)? What is the nature of magic in the world? What are the various nations and cultures available to PCs and what are they like (what are their beliefs and values? What is their government like. What is their technology? what classes/class variants/ subclasses are available)? What are some of the major institutions found in each culture? Whom are some of the major NPCs? What is some local history? Are their any major monsters in the area or other information that a starting player from a specific region or city might have that other starting characters would not?

Now, as for the specific instance with the wizards and assassins, I did not plan to have assassins hired. However, back when the guild was created, it crossed my mind that the head of the guild and the rest of the leadership would be the type to keep tabs on their members and they used the guild rings to track movements and, at times spy on them. When the rogue removed a guild membership ring off the finger of a wizard guild member's corpse and pocketed it, I remembered about the spells on it and the rogue never sold the ring or had it identified. The player kept it in the pouch and forgot about until a year or more later while going through his list of items.

See above. For a year or more, the players (and their characters) had been wondering how they had been tracked. Then one day, the rogue pulled it out and put it on. The druid thought he saw an eye, momentarily, appear in the gem and inquired about it. Upon the rogue telling how it came to be in his position, the druid cast identify on the ring(back in 3e, identify was one of the arcane spells that l had put on a variant druid spell list). The rogue got a stern lecture from the druid and then the party about giving rings and other items found to the druid- especially, if taken off dead wizards.

The players themselves loved how they had been tracked, how it made sense, and how the guild, probably, would have forgotten about them much earlier in the campaign if the rogue had not taken the ring).

Would I have thought of a guild ring if I had not created the guild prior to play and had to improvise the guilds creation on the spot? Probably not. Most of that initial adventure was improvised, but the groundwork was laid out with information I had determined back when coming up with the various nations, their cultures (government, beliefs, value, etc.), major institutions, major npcs, local histories,
etc.

Now, that all stated, while I like to engage in some world building to help define the world, it cultures, etc., I personally don't take it to the Tolkien level. I want to answer basic questions about the world, define how things work (e.g., cosmology, magic), and give players the available races, nations and cultural information that grounds the characters into the setting (including what classes, class variants, and or subclasses are restricted to specific cultures). This information is not all provided at once. Some is information is reserved until a player chooses a specific race, culture or even class.
The same information also helps me to improvise when my players go in completely different directions or pursue a different goal mid adventure. It also helps when they present opportunity for side adventures (e.g., complaining about being unsuccessful in getting the druid laid in the previous city...just as they are near a fairy forest led to the druid being kidnapped by a fairy and the party trying to rescue him before he either eats or drinks anything or becomes amorous with the fairy).

Yeah, it just illustrates differences of taste, technique, and opinion. I appreciate the explanation. I would just find the whole 'ring thing' to a sort of 'gotcha!' play. I mean, how many different little items and whatnot to PCs pick up? Do we literally now have to analyze them all and decide what their threat level is, etc? I mean, if I was a CLEVER wizard's guild, why would I put these charms on an OBVIOUS item like a ring? Surely I'd put them on some slip of paper that was glued into the spine of someone's spell book or something? Sewn inside the hem of a valuable robe? If I was a player in this game and thinking in those terms things would seem to quickly degenerate!

Likewise we will see the whole assassin's guild thing differently, as you indicate. I would think that there's little advantage to pre-establishing these facts. When the possibility came up, then I'd assume either this was feasible, and would happen in some dramatically interesting fashion, or it just wasn't interesting and thus its feasibility would be irrelevant.

I think the one thing I might disagree with is the idea that 'verisimilitude is a bad thing'. I don't think there's anyone who would outright claim that. I think verisimilitude has to do with genre adherence and narrative coherence, not with the existence of details that have been imagined at some point previous to play. Why is that previous time somehow potent with verisimilitude but the point at which play happens is not?
 

It's both. As a player I like to change the areas of the world I am adventuring in so that I can experience new things that the setting has to offer, also known as exploring the setting. The experiences and choices color and are colored by what is going on around me. My players seem to also enjoy that sort of thing since they go out of their way to do just what I do.

The story will unfold differently in the Magocracy of Thay than it would in the free city of Waterdeep, even if the PCs are seeking and doing essentially the same things in both locations. Exploration of the setting is an important part of the game we play.

But this is only true because differences have been established. If you play in terms of thematic choices and a dramatic narrative then changes of venue within the setting may indeed happen, but it will be a matter of a NEED based on story logic, dramatic need, and not "because element X doesn't show up in map location Y." You might go to 'Thay' to consult high level wizards, but that is probably because the GM decided to frame the wizards in Thay so that some sort of challenge could arise in terms of getting to them or interacting with them which would not seem consistent with being in 'Waterdeep' (and that would only be due to some elements that have already been established in play). In other words fictional positioning has meaning, but world detail for its own sake doesn't. Its easy to see the simple logic to this as well, since world detail is essentially arbitrary it can only be 'empty of meaning' in any essential sense until it is tied to an agenda.
 

Hussar

Legend
Say I don't like broccoli, and I don't like being forcefed, and I think twinkies are unhealthy (bad), and I don't like how food can make me fat. That doesn't mean food is bad, or even that I don't like food. It makes a lot more sense to me to talk about the actual things I don't like rather than trying to redefine "food" as the stuff I don't like about food.

Fair enough. Because, well, food is the word we use for that stuff we (generally) put in our mouths and eat. It's a perfectly good word.

But, we also have a perfectly good word - setting building. Every story needs a setting. It's one corner of the three things you need (the other two being character and plot). So, it's pretty much impossible to have a game without a setting.

So, is setting and world building the same? Why do we need two terms for it then? To me, setting building is perfectly fine. That's needed. You can't not do it. World building on the other hand, is largely self-indulgent and mostly pointless. However, I do recognize that there are all sorts of fantasy fans out there who just eat this stuff up with a spoon. Look at George R. R. Martin. Or Tolkien. People do love this stuff.

It baffles me to be honest and bores me to tears, but, there it is. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] talks about the need to detail out a city that the players were never supposed to go to being a good thing because the players decided to go there. Of course, the only reason they decided to go there is because [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] decided that the thing that they wanted simply wasn't available in the city they were in. Developing an entirely new city seems like an awful lot of work so the players can go buy a trinket. Wouldn't it be far simpler to have whatever they were looking for available in the city they were in and then build the adventure around that? Did it absolutely have to be in a completely new city?

Likely not. But, that urge to world build is strong and it's easy to justify. Oh, I needed a whole new city in my setting... because reasons.

To me, the pay off is never worth it.
 


Remove ads

Top