Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Maxperson]

]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.

I often read D&D RPG supplements for entertainment and ideas, and yes, I've taken lore about a monster and turned that into an adventure. Why not? It's a blast and gives you a good seed to create around. Just because you don't do that, doesn't mean that others don't and WotC needs to give something to all significant groups of people that play their game. Given that it's much easier to ignore than to create, I doubt that they will appease you and screw over the crowd that uses, or even needs the lore to help them create.

Do people just not read very much?

Sure they do. That doesn't keep the above from being true for people who like to read.

 

[Hussar]

But, again, how much do you actually need?

There's thirty years of Dragon magazine out there. Just the print stuff, not the 4e version. At about 100 pages per magazine, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 30000 pages of material. Never minding anything else. There's religions with less page count.
[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] - you usually start with a monster. Fair enough. Does that mean you start with the given world building text - start with the Monster Manual, go back through Dragon to look at the Ecology of article, delve into Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk to reference how that creature was used there, then dig into D&D branded novels to give it that final touch?

Or does it mean that you might use a line or two from the Monster Manual, and then 99% of the material is your own?

 

[Maxperson]

But, again, how much do you actually need?

There's thirty years of Dragon magazine out there. Just the print stuff, not the 4e version. At about 100 pages per magazine, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 30000 pages of material. Never minding anything else. There's religions with less page count.

And I still use it. It is, however, not in the current edition and it's much less work to use things built for the current edition that also match the lore I'm using, which many things from prior editions do not.

Or does it mean that you might use a line or two from the Monster Manual, and then 99% of the material is your own?

It depends on how much I like all the lore. I might use 1%, or I might use 100%. It's rarely 100%, though.

 

[Caliban]

But, again, how much do you actually need?

How much of any hobby do you need? I mean, on a practical level, none of this is necessary - not the dice, not the rulebooks, not the minis, not the setting info. None of it.

Go write a story or do an improv session with your friends. Go watch a movie. Play a sport, take up karate, go hiking. Play video games. All are viable alternatives to our particular hobby.

For many DM's nothing beyone the core rulebooks and dice are necessary - they create their own campaign world and lore and even feats and magic items. There is no real need for any supplements.

Some people just want crunch (new "official" races, classes, sub-classes, and/or feats and magic items). The lore and setting info are just pointless fluff included to pad the page count of the books.

Other people are just the opposite - they really don't care about all the crunchy bits, but they want more setting info, more lore - something they can create a character's personality and background with. If that includes a new class or feat that is tied into the lore, so much the better. Or they simply want to know more - the same reason people study the minutiae of movies and books and TV series and then make wikis about them.

Some people want it all. If it's associated with a particular setting, or published from an official source, they'll buy it.

But none of this - not the crunch, not the fluff - is actually "needed" anymore. Doesn't stop people from wanting it though. And paying for it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

While I agree that a lot of that is excessive and likely unnecessary, can it not also lead to inspiration? Sure, for you, that article is a waste (likely for me, too) but for someone else, maybe it sparks some idea. Maybe they want to explore some ideas about the ancient cultures of the region. Or maybe they find Aremag to be an interesting creature, and decide to increase his presence and role in their story.

This is part of why I don't entirely understand the criticism.....so much of the backstory that we're talking about won't impact play in any way. For those who don't like it, I can't see how it will even come up. Not unless the DM is so married to the material that he forces it to the forefront of the campaign....but then, I see that as more of a DM issue.

Its not free! This is a commercial product, so if I paid for it, then I paid for all that excess verbiage that I won't use, INSTEAD of getting something valuable, like 500 words here and 2k words there about additional encounter locations and other elements of that sort which I COULD probably use.

 

[Caliban]

Its not free! This is a commercial product, so if I paid for it, then I paid for all that excess verbiage that I won't use, INSTEAD of getting something valuable, like 500 words here and 2k words there about additional encounter locations and other elements of that sort which I COULD probably use.

What about the people who want that "excess verbiage" and are forced to pay for unnecessary information about "encounter locations' that they don't need?

I'm just saying, you aren't their entire audience. It's a lot of different people who prefer different things. It's a compromise - and not everyone is going to be happy with it, no matter what balance they strike between fluff, crunch, etc.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, again, how much do you actually need?

There's thirty years of Dragon magazine out there. Just the print stuff, not the 4e version. At about 100 pages per magazine, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 30000 pages of material. Never minding anything else. There's religions with less page count.

@Bedrockgames - you usually start with a monster. Fair enough. Does that mean you start with the given world building text - start with the Monster Manual, go back through Dragon to look at the Ecology of article, delve into Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk to reference how that creature was used there, then dig into D&D branded novels to give it that final touch?

Or does it mean that you might use a line or two from the Monster Manual, and then 99% of the material is your own?

I don’t run D&D much these days but I certainly make use of the ecology section in the MM if it is there. When I was running Ravenloft I often drew on the Van Richten books for my monsters. It depends.

There is a large spectrum here and I feel like a lot is being cut out. Obviously I don't have to read ten novels and five supplements to run a setting. But that isn't an argument against world building, that is an argument that bloat can be a problem. When it comes to game settings I purchase, my tastes span quite a bit. I like things to be navigable, but I do like good world content (I like HARN for example, and still really enjoy the setting material from Ravenloft). For my own campaigns, I like to world build because you need that deeper layer under the earth when players start digging. It just helps breath more life and potential adventure directions. I find the benefit of good world building is more player freedom in play because I have more pointers toward what may arise if players do X or go in Y direction. That doesn't mean I have to fully commit to these things as if they are a sacred text. At the end of the day it is about what is going on at my table. So I am not advocating canon here. I am saying stuff like a monster ecology section in an MM has its place. And if doesn't for a given GM, they can always ignore it. If I am running monsters on the fly, I am not going to read that many paragraphs at the table. But I may read a deeper monster entry between sessions if I know that kind of creature is becoming important and I want inspiration.

 

[eayres33]

Yup. Isn't this, pretty much by definition, self indulgent? The DM's going to read this information, probably never share it with the players and most likely it will never make it into the game.

That people like it has never been in dispute [MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION]91. I KNOW people like it. The great nerd boots range strong. The same sort of people that want to know the backstory of every single Star Wars character will want endless world building.

The original X1 module that lots of people ran quite successfully, is 32 pages long. Between Dungeon and Dragon, Paizo banged out about 24 pages of history and backstory of the Isle of Dread. When your backstory and world building is just about as long as the entire adventure, I'm going to call that self indulgent and largely unnecessary.

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

Wow, could you be more offensive or condescending in one forum post? “Endless setting wank” that serves no purpose in a forum discussion.
If you don’t like it that is find, but that comment is over the line.
Also it is meant to be read by GM’s and then played if the characters run into that area, if you want to take a crap over the authors who spent their time for very little money to write that setting you can, but I’m not rubber stamping that BS.

 

[eayres33]

I care a lot about the techniques of RPGing, but I don't generally care too much about terminology (provided there is clarity). For instance, a little way upthread I suggested that, at least for the purposes of this thread, there is no interesting difference between "story now" and "no myth".

I'm not really sure what you've got in mind that runs the contrary way.

From other threads you seem to point out the difference between a player presenting a situation in a passive voice, asking. Versus saying what they are doing and thus making the GM rule. To me they are the same, but to you they are techniques and once again subject to verbiage. The fact that you say you don’t understand a simple concept is again confusing.

 

[eayres33]

I hear that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has also stopped beating his family members.

That is not funny and uncalled for, Maxperson did not present a when did stop beating your wife situation, he was calling out Hussar for not phrasing his objections in a clear way.

I understand you wanting to point out that Hussar may have been unclear in his statements or to absolute, but to put that against when did you stop beating your wife, that is a low blow, a very low blow and it has no place on this forum.