Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Imaculata]

Why must this debate continue to run in circles? Unless there is hard counter-evidence one can provide that Story Now, No Myth gaming fails to provide believablity, consistency, and coherence, in the face of hard evidence to the contrary, can we just let this point rest?

Last time I checked, the thread was called "Why world building is bad", not "Why Story now, No Myth is good".

I'm not here to attack other methods of play. I'm here to defend worldbuilding.

 

[darkbard]

Last time I checked, the thread was called "Why world building is bad", not "Why Story now, No Myth is good".

I'm not here to attack other methods of play. I'm here to defend worldbuilding.

Fair enough. (And I think this thread title needlessly inflames strong responses; I much prefer its contemporary successor's "What is worldbuilding for?")

Is your opinion, then, that both traditional, heavy world-building approaches and Story Now, No Myth approaches can both achieve high levels of believability, consistency, and coherence?

If so, why do you claim

It [world building] can add complexity and intricacies to the plot, that wouldn't be there if it was just improvised on the spot.

?

Your intention certainly may not be to attack other methods of play, but your contention does rest on a faulty assumption about other methods of play.

 

[Maxperson]

That’s the point. They think they build it for the players and put all this effort in, but the reality is that most of it never gets seen by the players or they don’t care about.

For instance... you may detail the Inn of the Roaring Dragon, in the village of Blumenthal. Detail the landlord, his motivations, the crooked cellerar that’s secretly a spy for the entropy Cult, the names of serving wenches, a map of the inn, the stats for all of them and the items kept in the vault of the inn.

However...

A. The PCs may never visit Blumenthal

B. The PCs may not stop at the inn

C. They might stay but not be interested in getting to know the staff.

If any of these things are true then the three hours spent on these things was a collosal waste of time.

Unless the GM enjoys creating it, in which case who am I to tell someone what to do with their free time.

Plan the Roaring Dragon inn when you think your characters will need to go to Blumenthal and might need to stay at an inn. Or even better plan the inn and drop it into whichever village the party stay in next.

Build the adventure not the world. Or rather, build the world by building the adventures.

A few campaigns ago(mine are much shorter than [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s), my players at around 3rd level arrived in a town that had a library in it. They were asking some questions and the library was mentioned in passing, as was the old librarian. They hit me with B & C. They didn't go to the library and weren't interested in getting to know the staff there. Now we fast forward several months and the party is 13th or 14th level and is having trouble finding out information on a problem.

The Players/PCs are brainstorming ideas when one of them was like, "What about Bob?" Being human, I don't remember everything I mention to the group about all the places they've been, so I was like, "Who's Bob?" The player then says to me, "Remember when we were 3rd level and were in X town? There was this library and Bob was supposed to be very helpful at finding obscure information. Maybe we could teleport back there and see if he could help us."

That's what world building offers. It doesn't matter if they never go to a place. It doesn't matter if it seems like they will never be interested. There will be enough instances where the details you do come up with come in handy or come back to offer the players something of interest at a later date that it makes it all worthwhile. Sure, you could create that library on the spot somewhere, complete with a librarian, but doing that doesn't offer the same kind of depth and enjoyment to the players or DM as when they remember something useful several levels later and return to take advantage of it.

 

[Imaculata]

Your intention certainly may not be to attack other methods of play, but your contention does rest on a faulty assumption about other methods of play.

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.

That's not to say that other modes of play can't be engaging or exciting. But when you want a world that is rich and internally consistent in its lore, you have to prepare that through world building.

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. But unfortunately it does require a lot of preparation, and you may have to over-prepare, by preparing things that the players may not come in contact with.

That pegleg hanging above the Marquis' office? The players know that it is supposed to be the pegleg of the dreaded pirate captain Black William, who died in the nearby strait thanks to a devious conspiracy, which the Marquis himself was a part of. They also know its a fake, because they heard a tale from his daughter about how a noble lady tried to seduce him, only to steal the pegleg, thinking it contained a treasure map. Instantly you create sympathy for this npc, who can't seem to find true love, without someone trying to deceive him, who is only trying to find that damn treasure. But you also give a reason for the name of the strait, and a backstory to the entire region. Plus you create anticipation, by informing the players that they never found the pirate captain's body. Could he come back as an undead?

And then many sessions later, when the players find themselves on a remote island infested with cannibals, and they find the diary of the noble lady... It's that AHAH moment, that you wouldn't get unless you had first laid the groundwork for that side plot.

And then even more sessions later, the corpse of the dreaded pirate captain is found by the players, and they also find the real map!

And then even more sessions later, the dead pirate captain is brought back to life as a ghost pirate, and they have to fight him! And they know who he is, because the entire history of the region was used to build him up as this really bad dude. It was all just a very patient and very prolonged set up. First to subvert their expectations, by having the notorious pirate captain actually be dead. And then to subvert their expectations again, by having a necromancer raise him much later in the campaign.

And this is what I'm trying to get across here: 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.

 

[TheSword]

That's what world building offers. It doesn't matter if they never go to a place. It doesn't matter if it seems like they will never be interested. There will be enough instances where the details you do come up with come in handy or come back to offer the players something of interest at a later date that it makes it all worthwhile. Sure, you could create that library on the spot somewhere, complete with a librarian, but doing that doesn't offer the same kind of depth and enjoyment to the players or DM as when they remember something useful several levels later and return to take advantage of it.

Ahh, I see. Though your adventure did take you to the location of the library so it makes sense for you to have planned the location somewhat. That they chose not to go there is a shame but I totally agree with the idea to plan a library. However the library could be detailed ready to drop in to which library sized slot you require it in. It doesn’t need to be tied to a single place.

Having a library ready to go that is relevant to your PCs is helpful. Detailing which towns in your campaigns contain libraries and which don’t and who runs them and their level is uneccessary. It makes better sense to use Schroedinger’s Library. All towns contain one and none do until the PCs get there to find out.

Otherwise campaigns end up like Volo’s guidebooks and the Campaign begins to matter more than the excellence of the adventure.

 

[Imaculata]

Having a library ready to go that is relevant to your PCs is helpful. Detailing which towns in your campaigns contain libraries and which don’t and who runs them and their level is uneccessary.

When DM's do worldbuilding for their roleplaying campaign, I think the latter is very uncommon. Why would anyone write in detail about every single building in every single town? Does anyone do that?

But if the library of a certain town is particularly of interest, or tied to a main plot or side plot, then I will definitely prepare that location. I'll write what it looks like, and who works there. I'll also try my best to come up with a look for the library that is some what original.

Here are two libraries that I prepared for my campaign. Very brief and to the point. One I prepared many sessions ago, and one is for a future session:

Tower of the Unblinking Eye
This magical library is very large, and is always very crowded. Everyone keeps silent, as is common in any library, but there are always sounds of wind chimes and breathing in the halls of this library. It is clear that the place is haunted, due to the large amount of magical knowledge contained within. The library has magical shelves, that automatically put books back in their correct place. One can often find haunting figures in tattered black robes, gliding through the halls silently. Never batting an eye, never blinking. The library uses magical candles that give off a perfectly white light, and no heat. Animated copper candle holders (shaped like hands) automatically provide extra light when reading in the library. Many of the female visitors have male assistants following them and carrying piles of books. The library has a large stained glass window overseeing the bay. A magical eye above each door, makes sure no books are stolen. The magical eyes can see through clothes and bags, and sound an alarm when people try to steal any books.

The Hall of Greater Learning
A tall library built into one of the old volcano's natural chimneys. The library curves clockwise around the Basalt Tower, is 6 stories high, and has bridges to bridge the gaps. The Librarian's Guild is aware of the interest that the local pirate leader has shown into the Eternal Depths, but do not question it, since he is now their chosen leader.

 

[TheSword]

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.

Why do you have to plan these things before the campaign starts months ahead. Why not just plan what you need for the adventures next two or three sessions and then add more as the PCs progress? Surely game prep can be more nuanced than this all or nothing approach.

If your PC wants to play a cleric of the fire god, plan the fire god. If your adventure will feature a cult leader of the god of death then build the god of death. Don’t plan the whole pantheon of 20 gods and their complex inter-relationships because they will all be irrelevant if they don’t come up in the game [Unless you enjoy that kind of thing]

[Edit] I think we have crossed wire about world building. I call that adventure prep. Is one side really advocating winging it on the day with little or no prep?

 

[Imaculata]

Why do you have to plan these things before the campaign starts months ahead. Why not just plan what you need for the adventures next two or three sessions and then add more as the PCs progress? Surely game prep can be more nuanced than this all or nothing approach.

What I plan months ahead, or days ahead, will differ depending on the importance. But one does not exclude the other.

If your PC wants to play a cleric of the fire god, plan the fire god. If your adventure will feature a cult leader of the god of death then build the god of death. Don’t plan the whole pantheon of 20 gods and their complex inter-relationships because they will all be irrelevant if they don’t come up in the game [Unless you enjoy that kind of thing]

Because when my players visit the local church, and ask me what it looks like, I would like the statue to the god of death to already be there. So that things I set up very early on in the campaign, can have a planned pay off much later in the campaign. As was the case with my example of the undead pirate captain. A villain that was part of the lore since the very beginning of the campaign, but didn't actually enter the picture until much later.

[Edit] I think we have crossed wire about world building. I call that adventure prep.

World building is an important part of adventure prepping.

 

[Celebrim]

But hasn't pemerton already addressed this a zillion times, and posted numerous and extensive play reports that support the fact that Story Now, No Myth gaming, free of the kind of world building you advocate for, can produce the same kind of believability, consistency, and coherence? Do you dispute his examples?

Yes, I do as a matter of fact. It may be possible that the 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming can produce believability, consistency, and coherence, but the poster in question does not in fact actually practice 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming but does a ton of world building and then claims that it is 'Story Now, No Myth' gaming. That's the most infuriating thing about these ongoing threads. What pemerton actually does is engage in heavy myth, high preparation gaming, and then if at any point he improvises anything in the process of play because he improvised that one thing he hadn't prepared for, he claims he's doing 'Story Now, No Myth'. His examples repeatedly bear this out. Improvising something on the fly is not the same as 'Story Now, No Myth', no matter how hard you may claim it is.

Fundamentally, that's the reason these threads are such an incoherent mess. pemerton will spend pages detailing all of his world building and preparation, and then he'll call that 'Story Now, No Myth' in utter violation of all logic and reasonableness.

One of the main reasons a GM will adopt a high preparation approach typical of sandbox is that it allows him to improvise things on the fly using all the work and brainstorming he did before the session. That's one of the goals of the high preparation, top down, high myth approach. It allows you to infer what is in the spaces you didn't fully detail, and react to things you couldn't fully expect.

But basically, because such an approach is not fashionable, doesn't have a lot of cool buzzwords, and isn't what the cool people say that they are doing, pemerton actually runs a very traditional game - which can be proven from his examples - and then goes and claims he's engaging in some novel, fashionable, hip thing. Fundamentally, we're dealing with a GM that used to be a very rigid GM that ran things like RoleMaster, and I think exposure to ideas like 'No Myth' inspired him to take his game in new directions and he learned things from reading those articles, but as to what he actually practices it's not actually the thing called 'No Myth'.

 

[TheSword]

Because when my players visit the local church, and ask me what it looks like, I would like the statue to the god of death to already be there. So that things I set up very early on in the campaign, can have a planned pay off much later in the campaign. As was the case with my example of the undead pirate captain. A villain that was part of the lore since the very beginning of the campaign, but didn't actually enter the picture .

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.