Well I think one of the problems is approaching this from a "need" perspective. To play D&D all you technically need is your PC's, a room, an orc and some treasure. Not my cup of tea and I wouldn't want to play in such a barebones game... but technically that's all one needs to play D&D. So I definitely think approaching a hobby that is generally done for enjoyment from a need perspective obfuscates the issue... unless all GM's/DM's are concerned with running minimalist games... which I know at least for me isn't really a concern of mine.
Sorry...I didn't mean the minimal needs of the game, but rather whatever is needed for the game you want. So, if you're going to play a game that revolves around the PCs being in a thieves' guild, then having rival guilds and similar material is probably a good idea. Who happened to be the current king's predecessor and why was he dethroned isn't likely going to be as relevant, for example. The folks who are criticizing worldbuilding are generally doing so based on the idea that the GM is determining as much info ahead of time as possible, regardless of the relevance to the actual game that is to be played.
But couldn't this be alleviated through discussing the campaign with your players beforehand? Getting buy in, and understanding their interests around said buy in before creating the world? Or if using a published campaign setting running it by them first? Perhaps that's where we differ, I don't tend to design a world without being sure my players are interested enough in the world (at least at a high level) that they will want to play, explore and game in it.
Sure, that's a big part of it. But even then, you can't possibly have complete agreement on what can or can't come up in play, so there is always the chance that a GM introduces something that wasn't explicitly discussed, but which the players don't want to interact with. Even if there's setting and genre agreed upon, individual elements may come up that don't engage the players.
Well I think keeping an adventure flexible (as opposed to the world) is my preference (I tend to write adventures in an outline-esque form) but I can see the argument for either one depending on your preferences...
That said I keep seeing this strange assumption where there must be something better you can do for the game with your time besides worldbuilding or besides backstory... but honestly, at least IME, once I have the first adventure sketched out... there really isn't much for me to do before the first session (or usually even for a couple sessions once play begins) besides add to the world. FOr context we tend to alternate DM's in our group and so we have plenty of notice when a campaign is nearing it's wrap up point and another GM will be stepping in). I am curious though about what these other things I could be doing are (not being sarcastic or snarky but am honestly thinking maybe I'm missing something here)?
That's a good question. I'm sure the answer woudl very greatly from poster to poster. I'd love to see some answers from other people.
For me, I started eschewing backstory and world material in favor of having some details handy based on where I thought my players may go. So after a session, I'd prep for the next one by considering what I thought may happen, and then have some bits ready for any of those possibility. This could consist of a map or an encounter idea, or some NPCs....it varied by session.
Emphasis mine... bingo, I think this is not only the key to a good campaign but also the key to relevant worldbuilding.
Yeah, again, I don't think that most of the concerns people have in regard to this topic are as major as they seem to think. I understand the concern, and I can see how it could cause some issues, and I've recognized how it has done so in the past for me....but none of it has ever been that big a deal, really.
See to me this would be a much more constructive conversation vs. trying to paint worldbuilding as "bad" or in terms of need. what are some best practices for worldbuilders (and when should you break or subvert those), what types of games benefit from worldbuilding, how do people go about building out their worlds, etc. I know at leats for me it's be more helpful than this endless argument where everyone has already dug in their heels and picked a side.
I agree. If you ignore a lot of the sidetaking and heel digging that goes on in these conversations (and I don't excuse myself from that, I can be guilty of it, too) then there are some bits that are worth hearing and worth discussing.
Yeah I'm not really understanding this line of reasoning either...
Well, I can understand preferring one or the other. But I don't get the need to eliminate anything that doesn't match your personal preference. Different people get inspired by different types of gaming products.
