Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[gizmo33]

Sorry Imaro. I didn't mean to come off as being elitist. My point is that we've been conditioned for years to think that setting MUST BE DONE.

No we haven't. That's ridiculous actually. Your position on this, as I've already pointed out, comes with a built-in narrative that allows you to dismiss arguments to the contrary based on ad-hominem statements. IMO this conversation is more respectful if you dispense with the fanciful speculations regarding other people's psychology.

People find world-building helpful when it comes to running their games, for reasons that have already been described.

The DMG talks about it, umpteen pages in Dungeon and Dragon talks about it. Thousands of pages of Forgotten Realms material shows it. Popular fantasy does it.

It's not really surprising that everyone buys into this.

It's not really surprising that people write in complete sentences either. Your logic of cause and effect is bizarre. The situation you're describing is indistinguishable from a "good practice". Everyone does it, so therefore, it must be the result of brainwashing. For example - breathing.

That if you were to focus on adventures and ignore most of the setting stuff, there would be no point in gaming at all.

I don't agree with what you're describing here. Focusing on adventures and ignoring setting is just a difference of balance. I think for certain kinds of gaming it's probably a better way to play (tournaments for example). In any case, I don't think that proving that world-building is evil is logically related to whether good adventure design is part of good DMing, because I think that it is.

So who's being elitist? Me for suggesting that most of the setting work that gets done is superfluous or RC for suggesting that if you don't do a "well developed setting" that it just isn't worth playing?

Another point of basic logic - there is no "either - or" decision here - you are very much capable of being elitist irrespective of RCs statements.

If I took whiteout to the map in White Plume Mountain and crossed off Dragotha and replaced it with "Here Be Dragyns", would that make for a less satisfying experience?

There is no particular bit of "fluff" that anyone can point to and say "this elemental is vital to the adventure." I can't be there to conduct your game sessions for you.

For example, let's say PCs capture Sir Bluto sans Pite from one of the White Plume encounter areas. In my experience as a player, I find it unlikely that you're going to be able to ad-lib the interrogation past a certain point where it's going to be believable. I would imagine the sensible approach would be to use the world-building details to flesh out the encounter. Say that Bluto collects potion components for Thingizzard, or expound upon the "River of Blood Mass Murder Case" referenced in the module. With out world building information, all Bluto can say is "uh, I sit here at encounter area 15 and try to kill PCs".

I can't point to which elements you're going to use, because that depends on the interaction with and decisions of the players as well. Pointing to one particular element and saying "do I need this or not" is missing the point. It's like me pointing to a carrot and asking "if I eat this, will it make me healthy".

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, of course, you will brush all this off as simply DM problems and could never, possibly be a problem in approach.

Well, then, let us examine these and determine if they are a problem in approach.

Thousands of pages of Forgotten Realms material, most of which gathers dust

There is certainly a problem in approach with purchasing thousands of pages of material that you have no intention of using. OTOH, if you purchase thousands of pages of adventures you have no intention of using, you have the same problem. I would agree that you have a problem in approach if you choose to write thousands of pages of material that you have no intention of using, as well.

A Greyhawk paralyzed by its own canon, whose fans will crucify any attempt to bring in anything new, good or bad.

There is certainly a problem in approaching the world as a static environment that cannot change, or in mistaking the world you have purchased (if you do) as something that still belongs to the people you purchased it from, as opposed to something that you can modify to suit your needs.

DM's so in love with their own setting that they cannot adapt to their player's wishes

If you mean that they have a concept that precludes Care Bears and animated LEGO Men, then I don't see this as a problem at all. If you mean that they have a concept that precludes elves, I don't see this as a problem at all. If you mean that the DM should give the players whatever they wish, simply because they wish it, I would consider that a problem of approach.

Settings where the setting is so strong that the players cannot effect any changes

There is certainly a problem in approaching the world as a static environment that cannot change. Of course, this problem occurs far more frequently in adventure design (where it is called "railroading"), and I wouldn't seriously suggest that adventure design is bad as a result.

Campaign after campaign dying stuttering deaths because the DM spent lots of time figuring out the history of his world and not enough actually crafting adventures.

Yep. If you have campaign after campaign dying stuttering deaths, you might want to consider that you are approaching DMing in the wrong way.


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

Disagree. Of course, that really depends upon what you call "worldbuilding".

I think that we can all pretty much agree on the DMG's definition as the current running definition for the game. Hussar has made a very cogent point time and again that worldbuilding is stuff done for setting beyond what is needed in next game session. Under that definition, with the recognition that no setting stuff is needed in the next game session (because you can make it up as you go), you can run a D&D game without any worldbuilding, yet still benefit from the aspects of depth and verisimilitude that worldbuilding enables you to gain.

I'm willing to cede I think about more at the session than gets used at the session, so I guess, under that definition, I do world build. I just don't spend time outside of the game session doing it. Perhaps that is an acceptable way to phrase it?

FIFY.

Intense curiosity about otherwise pointless minutiae is one of the defining mental characteristics of the modern American Nerd. The details of nonexistent worlds are pretty exemplary of pointless minutiae. Worldbuilding, as Harrison points out, is concerned with details of nonexistent worlds. Presto-chango, those interested in the details of nonexistent worlds are defining examples of modern American Nerds.

Unless we're going to argue semantics on *that*, too. Of course, I suppose arguing semantics on what a "nerd" is is exemplary of intense curiosity about otherwise pointless minutiae...

Dork if you do, dork if you don't, it seems.

Exactly as adding more ketchup to your hamburger doesn't make it more ketchupy.

Wrong.

Exactly as adding more ketchup to your hamburger doesn't make it a BETTER hamburger.

If the worldbuilding elements you add to your setting improve the setting (i.e., are "good" worldbuilding elements), then by necessity they improve the setting. It's a tautological argument. Any work of any type that you do which contributes to the game contributes to the game and therefore makes it better.

But worldbuilding doesn't always contribute to a game. There are scads of examples in this thread alone about worldbuilding that was pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game. A world built so that it couldn't accommodate swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap).

Adding more ketchup doesn't make the burger better unless you REALLY like ketchup. I believe a lot of D&D players *really* like world building (and are spectacular nerds because of it). There's nothing wrong in it, but don't suggest that my burger is worse if I don't have any ketchup on it, and don't tell me that I need ketchup to have a real hamburger, and don't presume that unless I can cook you a delicious hamburger without ketchup that my position is somehow illogical.

That is the subtle arrogance of many who are big fans of worldbuilding. Like overzealous ketchup addicts, they claim that any burger without it can't possibly be as good as a burger with it, without realizing that tastes, as it were, are completely subjective.

Ketchupy is not better, it's just more ketchup. More worldbuilding detail isn't deeper, it's just more detail. Depth does not flow from the amount of off-hand comments about elven tea ceremonies you can rifle off.

Disagree.

The amount of worldbuilding done has little or nothing to do with the problem that you describe.

Once again, you assume that others can't speak for their own games. This makes it impossible to hold a cogent debate because whenever someone demonstrates evidence, one who feels that others can't speak for their own games questions whether or not it is really evidence, which leads to all sorts of wonderful thread-padding semantics discussions but does very, very little to actually address the heart of the point, which is that many DMs have been more interested in their own world than in a D&D game, thus hurting the game.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I think that we can all pretty much agree on the DMG's definition as the current running definition for the game. Hussar has made a very cogent point time and again that worldbuilding is stuff done for setting beyond what is needed in next game session.

Except that isn't the definition of worldbuilding provided in the DMG. And that Hussar actually *has* advocated preparing material beyond what is needed for the next session.

I'm willing to cede I think about more at the session than gets used at the session, so I guess, under that definition, I do world build. I just don't spend time outside of the game session doing it. Perhaps that is an acceptable way to phrase it?

And that seems to be working for your gaming group. Excellent. Keep it up. Don't assume it will work for everyone though.

Intense curiosity about otherwise pointless minutiae is one of the defining mental characteristics of the modern American Nerd. The details of nonexistent worlds are pretty exemplary of pointless minutiae. Worldbuilding, as Harrison points out, is concerned with details of nonexistent worlds. Presto-chango, those interested in the details of nonexistent worlds are defining examples of modern American Nerds.

Well I hope that you consider yourself a nerd right along side the worldbuilders, because as far as the rest of the world is considered, we're all nerds.

But worldbuilding doesn't always contribute to a game. There are scads of examples in this thread alone about worldbuilding that was pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game.

And this makes worldbuilding inherently bad how?

A world built so that it couldn't accommodate swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap).

Yup. Assuming it isn't just one player that wants to play that warforged.

That is the subtle arrogance of many who are big fans of worldbuilding. Like overzealous ketchup addicts, they claim that any burger without it can't possibly be as good as a burger with it, without realizing that tastes, as it were, are completely subjective.

Agreed. And how does that make worldbuilding bad?

More worldbuilding detail isn't deeper, it's just more detail. Depth does not flow from the amount of off-hand comments about elven tea ceremonies you can rifle off.

So what does depth mean in this context? What is it?

...very little to actually address the heart of the point, which is that many DMs have been more interested in their own world than in a D&D game, thus hurting the game.

THAT is the heart of the point? If so, then it isn't much of a point. It also does nothing to show how worldbuilding is bad. As has been stated, one can do absolutely no worldbuilding, but create a crappy adventure and the campaign is still just as bad. OTOH, a DM can do nothing but worldbuild and the players could have fun exploring that world and being a part of (or even the main force behind) the changes and events of said world.

Like you said, enjoyment is subjective and a matter of taste. The first priority of any D&D game should be for all to enjoy themselves. But that doesn't make worldbuilding any worse than adventure design.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Except that isn't the definition of worldbuilding provided in the DMG. And that Hussar actually *has* advocated preparing material beyond what is needed for the next session.

Semantics arguments bore me.

And that seems to be working for your gaming group. Excellent. Keep it up. Don't assume it will work for everyone though.

Show me where I did.

Well I hope that you consider yourself a nerd right along side the worldbuilders, because as far as the rest of the world is considered, we're all nerds.

Read my posts.

And this makes worldbuilding inherently bad how?

Read my posts.

Agreed. And how does that make worldbuilding bad?

No, it makes insisting that worldbuilding is inherently beneficial bad, just as insisting that ketchup inherently makes better burgers is bad. Or, more accurately, arrogant.

So what does depth mean? What is it?

A big topic. Perhaps you should start another thread?

THAT is the heart of the point? If so, then it isn't much of a point. It also does nothing to show how worldbuilding is bad. As has been stated, one can do absolutely no worldbuilding, but create a crappy adventure and the campaign is still just as bad. OTOH, a DM can do nothing but worldbuild and the players could have fun exploring that world and being a part of (or even the main force behind) the changes and events of said world.

It is the current heart of the matter, AFAIAC. And yes, good games from from 356 page setting bibles and good games from from 100% improv, and bad games come from 356 page setting bibles and bad games come from 100% improv. We've been over this. My problem, for the last few pages, has been an insistence that world building inherently makes better ("richer," "deeper," "more immersive," "greater verisimilitude") games.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Semantics arguments bore me.

Well inconsistent arguments confuse me. Besides, without semantics this thread would have been 5 pages long.

Show me where I did.

You've claimed that improv is a skill that anyone can develop. You've pointed out how much time it saves you not having to prepare beforehand. Perhaps I have inferred where there is no inference, but it has come across to me as advocating it as a superior approach.

Read my posts.

Again, sorry if I've misinterpreted, but I was reacting to your point that I quoted. You associated being a nerd with an obsession with detail, yet you claim to avoid working out that many details. It just came across to me that you were thereby exempting yourself from the definition.

No, it makes insisting that worldbuilding is inherently beneficial bad, just as insisting that ketchup inherently makes better burgers is bad. Or, more accurately, arrogant.

This comes back to the much debated definition of worldbuilding. If we claim that definition to simply include establishing a consistent setting, then I'm sorry, but I do consider that to be inherently beneficial. I guess that makes me arrogant.

A big topic. Perhaps you should start another thread?

It is the current heart of the matter, AFAIAC. And yes, good games from from 356 page setting bibles and good games from from 100% improv, and bad games come from 356 page setting bibles and bad games come from 100% improv. We've been over this. My problem, for the last few pages, has been an insistence that world building inherently makes better ("richer," "deeper," "more immersive," "greater verisimilitude") games.

I can't argue your second point without defining depth in the context of a campaign, so I guess I have to leave it at that.

 

[Imaro]

I think that we can all pretty much agree on the DMG's definition as the current running definition for the game. Hussar has made a very cogent point time and again that worldbuilding is stuff done for setting beyond what is needed in next game session. Under that definition, with the recognition that no setting stuff is needed in the next game session (because you can make it up as you go), you can run a D&D game without any worldbuilding, yet still benefit from the aspects of depth and verisimilitude that worldbuilding enables you to gain.

I'm willing to cede I think about more at the session than gets used at the session, so I guess, under that definition, I do world build. I just don't spend time outside of the game session doing it. Perhaps that is an acceptable way to phrase it?

Yes, by Hussar's definition you are worldbuilding...if it doesn't relate to the adventure it's worldbuilding. The medium, your mind as opposed to a piece of paper doesn't change this, neither does the actual time in which it takes place. I don't really see the difference in what your expousing here and "worldbuilding". To me it's sort of like the difference between someone who does math problems in their head and someone who uses scratch paper to work it out physically. They're both doing mathematics.

Intense curiosity about otherwise pointless minutiae is one of the defining mental characteristics of the modern American Nerd. The details of nonexistent worlds are pretty exemplary of pointless minutiae. Worldbuilding, as Harrison points out, is concerned with details of nonexistent worlds. Presto-chango, those interested in the details of nonexistent worlds are defining examples of modern American Nerds.

Unless we're going to argue semantics on *that*, too. Of course, I suppose arguing semantics on what a "nerd" is is exemplary of intense curiosity about otherwise pointless minutiae...

Dork if you do, dork if you don't, it seems.

Actually I would argue that intense curiosity about meaningless minutae is a human characteristic. That differs only in so much as what it pertains to. I know plenty of people who can spout off sport statistics, top designers and what they make, different artist and they're works, 80's cartoons. So the whole "only nerds" thing is really a fallacy dependant moreso on where your desire for minutae falls in relationship to the majority of people.

Wrong.

Exactly as adding more ketchup to your hamburger doesn't make it a BETTER hamburger.



But worldbuilding doesn't always contribute to a game. There are scads of examples in this thread alone about worldbuilding that was pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game. A world built so that it couldn't accommodate swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap).

Adding more ketchup doesn't make the burger better unless you REALLY like ketchup. I believe a lot of D&D players *really* like world building (and are spectacular nerds because of it). There's nothing wrong in it, but don't suggest that my burger is worse if I don't have any ketchup on it, and don't tell me that I need ketchup to have a real hamburger, and don't presume that unless I can cook you a delicious hamburger without ketchup that my position is somehow illogical.

I really think the analogy is better suited to...

bun=game rules(holds everything together)
meat=adventures( it's the actual "meat" of the burger)
worldbuilding=condiments( they're flavor and different people like different ones)

Now, there's a wide majority of people who can eat a burger and be content, it nourishes you, stops the hunger pains, etc. They can even eat the meat without a bun...freeform interactive storytelling without actual rules. Now the question is are the condiments necessary. No. Will certain condiments enhance the burger for the majority of people? Yes. The trick is figuring out what "condiments" your players enjoy and focussing on those.
Do they like new organizations they might join later(w/new feats and abilities)?
Do they like interacting and creating relationships with the NPC's around them?
Do they enjoy your particular take on the history and customs of a particular(or even all) race(s)?

Just like the various playstyles(problem solver...hack n' slasher...etc.), which should shape how you design your adventures, player prefrences have to be considered in worldbuilding as well. Otherwise, yes you do end up with wasted effort.

That is the subtle arrogance of many who are big fans of worldbuilding. Like overzealous ketchup addicts, they claim that any burger without it can't possibly be as good as a burger with it, without realizing that tastes, as it were, are completely subjective.

Ketchupy is not better, it's just more ketchup. More worldbuilding detail isn't deeper, it's just more detail. Depth does not flow from the amount of off-hand comments about elven tea ceremonies you can rifle off.



Once again, you assume that others can't speak for their own games. This makes it impossible to hold a cogent debate because whenever someone demonstrates evidence, one who feels that others can't speak for their own games questions whether or not it is really evidence, which leads to all sorts of wonderful thread-padding semantics discussions but does very, very little to actually address the heart of the point, which is that many DMs have been more interested in their own world than in a D&D game, thus hurting the game.

You condemn RC and then make the blanket statement of "many DM's have been more interested in their own world than in a D&D game..." Where? Is this your experience, because I haven't been unlucky enough to have a DM like that. It's a subjective thing period and is more dependant on the DM than any function of worldbuilding itself.

I think that those who say "worldbuilding" is a waste, totally ignore those who do like ketchup, or onions, or cheese, or mayo, or whatever. Like I said you can have just a burger and it does accomplish the necesary function of food...but if given the option I'll take mine with cheese, grilled onions and some ketchup and mustard. Personally as playing D&D is suppose to be for enjoyment I as a player or DM would rather play a game(eat a burger) with the type of worldbuilding(condiments) I enjoy. I'll even suffer through the elemnts that interest someone else, just like in an adventure, because it's a social game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You've claimed that improv is a skill that anyone can develop. You've pointed out how much time it saves you not having to prepare beforehand. Perhaps I have inferred where there is no inference, but it has come across to me as advocating it as a superior approach.

Read specifically the parts where I say that people should do as much worldbuilding as is fun for them.

There is no superior approach. Looking for one is looking for Witches in Salem. You'll only find what you want to be there.

This comes back to the much debated definition of worldbuilding. If we claim that definition to simply include establishing a consistent setting, then I'm sorry, but I do consider that to be inherently beneficial. I guess that makes me arrogant.

Ah, but you're don't hold that arrogant opinion, do you? So I guess that definition can't possibly be the one I'm using, can it? What definition, I wonder, could possibly include an idea that isn't inherently beneficial. Perhaps is is back in those posts of mine...perhaps...

I can't argue your second point without defining depth in the context of a campaign, so I guess I have to leave it at that.

I'm sure you've got a pretty good idea of "campaign depth" in your head. Why not, in absence of encyclopedic definition, use your head? Rest assured, if it's off-base from my own, I will elaborate on my own so that you can see how a rational person can arrive at my conclusions.

Leaving it and taking me at face value works for me, though.

Yes, by Hussar's definition you are worldbuilding...if it doesn't relate to the adventure it's worldbuilding. The medium, your mind as opposed to a piece of paper doesn't change this, neither does the actual time in which it takes place. I don't really see the difference in what your expousing here and "worldbuilding". To me it's sort of like the difference between someone who does math problems in their head and someone who uses scratch paper to work it out physically. They're both doing mathematics.

I can accept that, and, in that light, I can see how worldbuilding can be seen as essential, or at least an unavoidable consequence of an imaginative mind (which is pretty essential for a D&D game). I agree, if worldbuilding is defined as Hussar and the DMG define it, a world is built, one way or the other, in a similar way to doing math in your head or on paper -- the same conclusion is reached.

Actually I would argue that intense curiosity about meaningless minutae is a human characteristic. That differs only in so much as what it pertains to. I know plenty of people who can spout off sport statistics, top designers and what they make, different artist and they're works, 80's cartoons. So the whole "only nerds" thing is really a fallacy dependant moreso on where your desire for minutae falls in relationship to the majority of people.

You could also phrase this by saying: "Everyone's a nerd about something."

But, Harrison in the OP is discussing people who are nerds about imaginary worlds, and uses "nerds" to describe them. If worldbuilding is interest in the minutiae of imaginary worlds, then any worldbuilding is being a nerd.

So RC wasn't incorrect in removing "for us nerds" in my post, but neither was my post broken for containing it in the first place, so he was incorrect in thinking that it needed to be fixed.

I really think the analogy is better suited to...

bun=game rules(holds everything together)
meat=adventures( it's the actual "meat" of the burger)
worldbuilding=condiments( they're flavor and different people like different ones)

Now, there's a wide majority of people who can eat a burger and be content, it nourishes you, stops the hunger pains, etc. They can even eat the meat without a bun...freeform interactive storytelling without actual rules. Now the question is are the condiments necessary. No. Will certain condiments enhance the burger for the majority of people? Yes. The trick is figuring out what "condiments" your players enjoy and focussing on those.
Do they like new organizations they might join later(w/new feats and abilities)?
Do they like interacting and creating relationships with the NPC's around them?
Do they enjoy your particular take on the history and customs of a particular(or even all) race(s)?

Just like the various playstyles(problem solver...hack n' slasher...etc.), which should shape how you design your adventures, player prefrences have to be considered in worldbuilding as well. Otherwise, yes you do end up with wasted effort.

Largely agreed. Any disputes I have are minor enough to not bother wasting words on at the moment.

You condemn RC and then make the blanket statement of "many DM's have been more interested in their own world than in a D&D game..." Where? Is this your experience, because I haven't been unlucky enough to have a DM like that. It's a subjective thing period and is more dependant on the DM than any function of worldbuilding itself.

I direct you to the other posts in this thread relating about DMs who have chosen world over game first and foremost. To supplement that, I give examples like "a DM whose world forbids swashbuckling warforged ninjas when the group wants to play swashbuckling warforged ninjas." I do have my own anecdotes, but I don't really think they're necessary -- the point has been well illustrated.

I think that those who say "worldbuilding" is a waste, totally ignore those who do like ketchup, or onions, or cheese, or mayo, or whatever. Like I said you can have just a burger and it does accomplish the necesary function of food...but if given the option I'll take mine with cheese, grilled onions and some ketchup and mustard. Personally as playing D&D is suppose to be for enjoyment I as a player or DM would rather play a game(eat a burger) with the type of worldbuilding(condiments) I enjoy. I'll even suffer through the elemnts that interest someone else, just like in an adventure, because it's a social game.

I don't believe I see anyone saying worldbuilding is a waste. I do believe I see people claiming it's not essential (which would only be true of a certain type of worldbuilding -- namely the extensively pre-prepared kind). I see people claiming that it's not always good. I see many claims that it isn't as important as many hold it up to be. There is truth in all of those statements. But a waste? Certainly nothing which adds to the fun of you and your group is a waste.

You're right, yes, that people will find the particular condiments that they like. And some people like it without condiments, or perhaps would rather take a bite and then put on whatever tastes good and is in arm's reach at the moment. And finding the happy medium for the group is what makes the game good.

 

[Imaro]

I direct you to the other posts in this thread relating about DMs who have chosen world over game first and foremost. To supplement that, I give examples like "a DM whose world forbids swashbuckling warforged ninjas when the group wants to play swashbuckling warforged ninjas." I do have my own anecdotes, but I don't really think they're necessary -- the point has been well illustrated.

The funny thing is that I see just as many threads saying that a certain amount of worldbuilding is necessary for fun...also that the time spent worldbuilding should be better spent on adventure design...ie a waste of time. This is definitely a "playstyle" issue as opposed to an issue created through worldbuilding. The same way adventure design itself isn't responsible for making a DM railroad the PC's...a particular adventure might be designed this way but it is not inherent to adventure design.

I don't believe I see anyone saying worldbuilding is a waste. I do believe I see people claiming it's not essential (which would only be true of a certain type of worldbuilding -- namely the extensively pre-prepared kind). I see people claiming that it's not always good. I see many claims that it isn't as important as many hold it up to be. There is truth in all of those statements. But a waste? Certainly nothing which adds to the fun of you and your group is a waste.

But for those who only enjoy a hamburger w/cheese...or w/some grilled onions...isn't it then necessary. If I play roleplaying games in general for a certain experience does it not become necessary. Let's take adventure design as an example, one could say you don't need a certain type of encounter in your adventure to play a game of D&D, right? Where this breaks down is the fact that you actually do. If your players love combat then combat encounters are necessary to keep them playing, otherwise they will get bored and quit or the game will fall apart. Thus they are necessary for these people to play. The same can be applied to worldbuilding.

Also why is pre-prepared "not essential" If a DM doesn't have the skills, energy, quickness, or whatever to improvise his worldbuilding...isn't it then essential if this is what the players desire from the game?

 

[Darth Shoju]

My problem, for the last few pages, has been an insistence that world building inherently makes better ("richer," "deeper," "more immersive," "greater verisimilitude") games.

I'm sure you've got a pretty good idea of "campaign depth" in your head. Why not, in absence of encyclopedic definition, use your head? Rest assured, if it's off-base from my own, I will elaborate on my own so that you can see how a rational person can arrive at my conclusions.

OK, well then let's use a statement by Hussar as the basis, since it represents what I would suspect to be a lack of depth (it really depends what Hussar means by "the barest threads of setting", but for the hypothetical example lets assume the worst):

If you instead spend all that time/money on adventures and then just hang them together with the barest threads of setting, you can run campaign after campaign, drastically changing setting, without doing any more work.

Let's say the adventure is to go into a dungeon and recover a relic of some sort. The party starts in a nearby village and has to travel to the dungeon. The DM has done no worldbuilding beyond what is present in the adventure. He is also not gifted at improv. I as a player have some questions:

ME: Ok what nations are there? Where can my character be from?
DM: There are nations for all of the races in the PHB.
ME: Ok...what are the human nations like?
DM: I don't know...what kind of nation do you want to be from?
ME: Well, can I be from one that is kind of like ancient China?
DM: Sure.
ME: How does my nation get along with the other nations?
DM: That isn't important in the adventure.
ME: Ok.

So I make a human priest and do what I can to make him represent a culture based on ancient China. We start the session in the town. Again, I have some questions:

ME: Is there a branch of my church in this town?
DM: The adventure doesn't say...I'll say no. It's too far away.
ME: Ok, are there any churches in the town?
DM: Just one.
ME: Ok, I go there. I'm going to talk to the priest to get a feel for his religion.
DM: It just says his name, level, and that he is a priest of an agricultural deity.
ME: Ok, my religion venerates nature spirits so we should get along well.
DM: Sure.
ME: Is the town facing any problems that I could help with before we head to the dungeon?
DM: It doesn't say...so, no.
ME: Ok

As the party prepares to head to the dungeon, we ask what the trip there will entail.

DM: You have to go east through the Forest of Endless Death.
ME: That sounds unpleasant. Can we go around the forest to the south?
DM: The map doesn't show what is there. So I'll say no.
ME: Why not?
DM: Because there is an impassable desert there, ok?
ME: What about to the north?
DM: More desert.
ME: The forest is in the middle of the desert?
DM: Yup.
ME: Ok...

After a perilous journey through the forest and a decent little dungeon crawl, the party finds the relic. The DM's next adventure that he purchased features finding an island where some pirates hid some treasure. The DM decides to drop the hook for that one in the dungeon. He says that we find a clue that indicates some pirates took some treasure from the dungeon and hid it.

ME: What kind of clue is it?
DM: Ummm...a journal.
ME: Who wrote it?
DM: A pirate.
ME: What was his name?
DM: Blackbeard.
ME: Really? Why did he leave his journal behind?
DM: He dropped it.
ME: Ok. What else does it say?
DM: It says where to find the island where they are hiding the treasure.
ME: Ok. I guess we have to go back through the Forest of Horrible Dying and back to town before we can get to the coast.
DM: It's the Forest of Endless Death and no, that would take too long. You can just go south to the town that starts the next adventure. It is on the coast.
ME: I thought there was an impassable desert to the south?
DM: Oh. Well, no that is too inconvenient. It is just some grassy hills.
ME: Ok....

Now, that dungeon could have been pretty fun. The pirate adventure could be a blast. In the above example the DM had enough setting to run the adventure, and he certainly did well to ensure the players had something to do that session. But I just don't feel that campaign is as deep as one where the DM did some worldbuilding beforehand. If he had (or had used a published setting), he could have answered many of the questions raised during the session that didn't directly pertain to the adventure. He could have had enough info to give my priest something interesting to do while the party is prepping for the journey. He could have let us go around the forest. He could have setup the hook for the next adventure in a better way. Now this is certainly a fairly extreme example, but to me it illustrates how worldbuilding can add depth.