Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Aldarc]

So now you're admitting that worldbuilding involves things much smaller in scope, like say a country or city. Awesome!

Congratulations on winning your strawman argument, Max. I shall give you an XP for winning the Internet.

 

[Sunseeker]

I want to address these two comments in the opposite order, and I want to preface by saying I strongly dislike playing pre-published settings.

I don't see the point of game books that are meant to be read, not played.

This comment however, strikes me as odd, because if you remove a couple words for it, it almost sounds like you don't see the point of the founcational literature that feeds into defining a particular game. If I were to say "I don't see the point of books that are meant to be read, not played." I would sound absurd, but that's the way your comment reads to me. Does reading LOTR not provide inspiration and to some degree, background for the creative designs of D&D? Does watching Star Wars or playing Star Wars video games not provide inspiration and background for playing FFG's Star Wars RPG?

To me, the purpose of any non-rule material is exactly that: information on the who/what/why of the setting in particular and inspiration for what to do within or without of that setting.

Some of the best thing I've added to my campaigns have been inspired by non-rule material. Movies, books, setting books, comics, you name it.

I do think there is some degree of "setting wank" issue with every setting, which is what turns me off to playing in official settings, but I still see the point of having that material, even reading that material. If nothing else, maybe something will provide an interesting jumping-off point for your own creative endeavors.

To be fair, it was Savage Tide that convinced me that I wanted nothing to do with Pathfinder and Golarian. The endless setting wank serves virtually no purpose. It's meant to be read, not played.

One of these things is not like the other. I've never played in Golarion. Ever. As a setting it doesn't do anything for me. BUT, I have never once felt like Golarion infringed upon my Pathfinder games. Granted, all their material is written as though it is set within their setting, but the actual amount of setting lore that invades the mechanics is little. You are of course, welcome to feel differently, but given that I do not like a single D&D setting, I find disregarding an entire game over a fairly non-impactual setting to be a bit of a stretch.

 

[Hussar]

Just to address the Pathfinder thing: At the time I had a Dungeon and a Dragon subscription when Paizo was offering to turn that over to Pathfinder modules. But, since that would mean that I'd have to accept the level of world building that Paizo includes in their modules, I was totally turned off.

And, since I wasn't going to run any of the Pathfinder modules, I figured what was the point in running the Pathfinder system? If I wanted to, I would stick to 3e. So, that's why I never changed over.

-----

Now, on the point about inspiration. Just how much inspiration do you need? There are over a thousand English language original fantasy novels per year and have been for the last twenty years. That's not counting media tie in novels like Forgotten Realms stuff or Star Wars.

I mean, just look at Forgotten Realms. There are what, a hundred, two hundred FR novels out there? How much information do you need to run a FR campaign? It's not like this information is hard to find. "But, we need several pages of largely irrelevant backstory in our modules" seems a bit much when you already have THOUSANDS of pages of backstory available to you.

 

[Caliban]

Now, on the point about inspiration. Just how much inspiration do you need?

All of it. All the inspirations.

 

[pemerton]

If I were to say "I don't see the point of books that are meant to be read, not played." I would sound absurd, but that's the way your comment reads to me. Does reading LOTR not provide inspiration and to some degree, background for the creative designs of D&D? Does watching Star Wars or playing Star Wars video games not provide inspiration and background for playing FFG's Star Wars RPG?

Well, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is on record as not enjoying LotR for much the same reasons he doesn't care to read the dragon turtle's backstory. But also, I think implicit in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s comment is the suggestion that setting background in RPG books is not inspirational literature on a par with JRRT or REH or whichver fantasy author one prefers.

Certainly, for my part, if I want to read a story I will do that. If I want a set of RPG rules, I will acquire those. I want my RPG rules to be inspirational, but inspirational of play. I want rules that, when I read them, inspire me to imagine moments of play that might occur at my table. (Eg because of the sorts of situations they will allow me to frame, because of how they handle resolution, etc.) I don't want to pick up a RPG rulebook and find myself reading a second-rate short story. (I would put the Essentials books for 4e in this category, and also quite a bit of The Plane Below and The Plane Above.)

 

[Sunseeker]

Well, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is on record as not enjoying LotR for much the same reasons he doesn't care to read the dragon turtle's backstory. But also, I think implicit in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s comment is the suggestion that setting background in RPG books is not inspirational literature on a par with JRRT or REH or whichver fantasy author one prefers.

Certainly, for my part, if I want to read a story I will do that. If I want a set of RPG rules, I will acquire those. I want my RPG rules to be inspirational, but inspirational of play. I want rules that, when I read them, inspire me to imagine moments of play that might occur at my table. (Eg because of the sorts of situations they will allow me to frame, because of how they handle resolution, etc.) I don't want to pick up a RPG rulebook and find myself reading a second-rate short story. (I would put the Essentials books for 4e in this category, and also quite a bit of The Plane Below and The Plane Above.)

Personally, I think WotC would be better served to create actual novels to be used as their world lore. I don't know if they still do this with anything other than Drizzt. I know that my enjoyment for MTG has suffered greatly ever since they stopped writing novels (even bad ones) for their books.

 

[Maxperson]

Congratulations on winning your strawman argument, Max. I shall give you an XP for winning the Internet.

Turnabout is fair play

 

[Hussar]

Well, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is on record as not enjoying LotR for much the same reasons he doesn't care to read the dragon turtle's backstory. But also, I think implicit in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s comment is the suggestion that setting background in RPG books is not inspirational literature on a par with JRRT or REH or whichver fantasy author one prefers.

Well, to be fair, it's not even really a question of quality. Let's give credit where credit is due, Eric Mona knows how to spin a story. So do rest of the Paizo crew. They write some very excellent stuff.

But,

Certainly, for my part, if I want to read a story I will do that. If I want a set of RPG rules, I will acquire those. I want my RPG rules to be inspirational, but inspirational of play. I want rules that, when I read them, inspire me to imagine moments of play that might occur at my table. (Eg because of the sorts of situations they will allow me to frame, because of how they handle resolution, etc.) I don't want to pick up a RPG rulebook and find myself reading a second-rate short story. (I would put the Essentials books for 4e in this category, and also quite a bit of The Plane Below and The Plane Above.)

is dead on target. I'm not reading the Monster Manual for enjoyment. I'm reading it because I need a critter to eat my PC's. I don't know about anyone else, but, I generally start writing the adventure first, and then populate that adventure with critters. "Hey, there's a hole over here, let's chuck an Otyugh in here. Oh, wizard's storage room, what kind of weird goodies can I have crawl out of that box?

I've never gone the other way - "Hrm, this bit of backstory about this monster is really interesting, let's write an entire adventure around this". I've certainly taken novels and short stories that I've read and turned them into adventures. But, the Monster Manual has almost never led to anything in play.

Do people just not read very much?

 

[Caliban]

I've never gone the other way - "Hrm, this bit of backstory about this monster is really interesting, let's write an entire adventure around this". I've certainly taken novels and short stories that I've read and turned them into adventures. But, the Monster Manual has almost never led to anything in play.

I have. Not incredibly often, but it has happened. Much more frequently I've used the bits of monster lore/ecology included in the Monster Manuel (or Dragon magazine when it existed) to decide how and when to include the monster in an encounter, or created an encounter based on the monster lore/ecology.

Not nearly as often as I used too (as I mostly create my own campaign setting and lore these days), but it happened.

Most recently I used the information on Beholder procreation in Volo's Guide to come up with a weird Beholder NPC - Pac the Beholder, a yellow skinned beholder who was literally created out of the fever dreams of a sick beholder. (I.e. a beholder loosely themed on the Pac Man video game, obsessed with recreating the mazes from the game in his lair and one day finding his own Ms. Pac - the pinnacle of the beholder form in his eyes. It was a bit of a silly game session. )

Do people just not read very much?

Well, your problem seems to be that people are wanting to read entirely too much. Some people just like reading lore and setting material. I used to do it a lot. Many gamers like to become an "authority" on their hobbies and learning the lore is part of that. (Kind of like sports fanatics memorizing reams of stats for sports that will never have a practical value when actually playing the sport, or even doing a fantasy league.)

Others prefer to focus on the specific areas that interest them.

Neither is wrong, just different ways of enjoying different parts of the hobby.

 

[Bedrockgames]

is dead on target. I'm not reading the Monster Manual for enjoyment. I'm reading it because I need a critter to eat my PC's. I don't know about anyone else, but, I generally start writing the adventure first, and then populate that adventure with critters. "Hey, there's a hole over here, let's chuck an Otyugh in here. Oh, wizard's storage room, what kind of weird goodies can I have crawl out of that box?

I've never gone the other way - "Hrm, this bit of backstory about this monster is really interesting, let's write an entire adventure around this". I've certainly taken novels and short stories that I've read and turned them into adventures. But, the Monster Manual has almost never led to anything in play.

Do people just not read very much?

I usually start with the monster or villain.