Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Maxperson]

What compromise. You folks get 100% what you want and we get left in the cold. Yeah that’s one sort of compromise I suppose.

What are you talking about? I've never seen a supplement that didn't include things that I didn't want, didn't need and/or didn't like. I doubt I'm alone in this.

 

[Maxperson]

Yet, funnily enough everyone else in this thread could follow my criticisms perfectly well. To the point where others started pointing out that I never actually said what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] claimed I did.

Pen hits it pretty square on the head.

As I said, turnabout is fair play. You've twisted the vast majority of what I've said in our many conversations here, which means that you want me to do it to you. The Golden Rule and all that.

 

[Hussar]

Something [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said stuck in my brain. He’s got so much world building material that he can’t even sift through it all. Presumably he’s got a collection of Dragon Magazines sitting somewhere gathering dust.

I think that nicely highlights the “compromise “ here. People have so much material that it’s not really usable.

Heck this month’s Dragon+ has a several thousand word article outlining world building. Plus another few thousand words worth of fiction (part three mind you) set in Chult.

Sorry [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] but what compromise were you referring to?

 

[Maxperson]

Something [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said stuck in my brain. He’s got so much world building material that he can’t even sift through it all. Presumably he’s got a collection of Dragon Magazines sitting somewhere gathering dust.

I said I don't have time to sift through my Dragon Magazines, because they don't any kind of system organizing every Dragon Magazine where I can quickly look up what I need like. If there were some sort of Table of Contents that showed me all the articles and crunch for all of the Dragons, separated out by world, general content, and theme, I'd use them just like I do all of my other supplements.

I didn't say that I have so much material that I can't go through it. Once again, you are twisting what I say.

I think that nicely highlights the “compromise “ here. People have so much material that it’s not really usable.

And there you respond to your twisting, engaging in a beeeautiful Strawman. This is typical of your responses to and about me.

 

[Imaculata]

Something [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said stuck in my brain. He’s got so much world building material that he can’t even sift through it all. Presumably he’s got a collection of Dragon Magazines sitting somewhere gathering dust.

I think that nicely highlights the “compromise “ here. People have so much material that it’s not really usable.

All that tells me, is that having tons of issues of Dragon Magazine makes it really hard to find something specific in them, but nothing about worldbuilding.

I have all my own world building neatly organized in multiple word documents, one file for each location. It usually starts with a basic description of the location, then a list of points of interest and npc's, and then more detailed descriptions of each point of interest. I just grab whatever location the players are at, and it quickly tells me everything I need to know.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What compromise. You folks get 100% what you want and we get left in the cold. Yeah that’s one sort of compromise I suppose.

I can understand your gripe, but I think your math seems a bit off. You're saying that everything WotC publishes is ALL worldbuilding? You can use 0% of it?

I don't think that can be the case. There are plenty of maps and encounters and NPCs and locations that are portable enough to be used in any way you like. Sure, you'd prefer that the books were nothing but that kind of crunch material, but that seems unlikely at this point.

And that's because they have indeed compromised.

 

[Hussar]

Again, I’ll point to Dragon+ for a good example of what you are calling compromise.

We have: an article specifically about world building, a part three of short fiction, an article detailing the history of githyanki and githzerai, including links to PDFs of more articles detailing them.

On the non world building side, we have an article of maps for the latest AP, and an adverticle, linking to modules for sale.

Umm, again, you think that’s a compromise?
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I’m not twisting anything. You have so much material that you cannot even find what you are looking for. You stated that. A lack of indexing means that you can’t really use the material you have. Right? So, it’s perfectly fair to say you have more than you can use.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, I’ll point to Dragon+ for a good example of what you are calling compromise.

We have: an article specifically about world building, a part three of short fiction, an article detailing the history of githyanki and githzerai, including links to PDFs of more articles detailing them.

On the non world building side, we have an article of maps for the latest AP, and an adverticle, linking to modules for sale.

Umm, again, you think that’s a compromise?
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I’m not twisting anything. You have so much material that you cannot even find what you are looking for. You stated that. A lack of indexing means that you can’t really use the material you have. Right? So, it’s perfectly fair to say you have more than you can use.

That isn't world building though. He's talking about Dragon magazine back issues which include all kinds of things. Let's not confuse world building with product lines that simply go back to the 70s. I don't know anyone who runs a setting or world based on obscure Dragon magazine articles.

But I am not sure what the angst is in this discussion. Maybe I am missing something. World building is something you can engage as little or as much of as you like as a gm. In terms of product lines out there, there are a wide variety of games offering just about every imaginable approach (and a good many are d20 if your concern is applying them to D&D). There is also the HARN approach, which I find pretty useful because I can buy what I want and ignore what I don't want; and it works pretty well piecemeal. In terms of your own settings, if you hate world building, think only a small amount is called for, etc, you are perfectly free to make your setting as you see fit. If someone wants to go deeper, they can.

The original article posted at the start of this is, I think useful to fiction writers. But even then it is the kind of advice (like 'never use the passive voice' or 'never use adverbs') that can be taken way too far or become dull if everyone abides by it. And even then, a story like Dune doesn't work without heavy world building. Or even a fairly simple story like the City and the Stars by Arthur C. Clarke, still demands good world building to be what it is. World Building is fine. The bigger problem I encounter in science fiction is when it becomes the point itself.

I think in gaming, there is a lot more value to world building than in fiction because you often need those kinds of deep details when players do unexpected things or go to unexpected places. At the same time, you want information that is easy to deploy, so ideally the good world building can be organized in such a way that it isn't deeply confusing to navigate in play. But here, again, all kinds of approaches are available. In the OSR there is a large emphasis on world building, but also an emphasis on brevity of text so things are navigable during play. More and more that has been the approach that works for me. But it isn't the only approach I take. Sometimes I need more text for certain things in my campaigns.

At the end of the day, for, I don't think any of us have to compromise. If you've found a way to approach this that works for you, then you don't need to change it for anyone (and hopefully you share it so others with similar aims can benefit).

Again, though, maybe I am missing something here.

 

[Caliban]

Again, though, maybe I am missing something here.

Not entirely sure myself.

But I think the gist of it is that those who prefer to have encounters, stat blocks, and game mechanics provided for them by WOTC are not having their particular indulgences catered to like those who prefer stories, world building, and setting lore are having their particular indulgences catered too. Or something.

Whatever it is, it's bad, and if you don't agree then you are on the other side and your opinion doesn't count because you are already being 100% catered too.

And Dragon+ (which I've never even looked at) is somehow catering to me specifically.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I’m not twisting anything. You have so much material that you cannot even find what you are looking for. You stated that. A lack of indexing means that you can’t really use the material you have. Right? So, it’s perfectly fair to say you have more than you can use.

This is flat out wrong. It's like saying that because I have $20 lost in my attic somewhere and it's too much effort to go find it, that I have more money than I can use. It's an absurd statement. The stuff in the Dragon Magazine is plenty usable by me. It's just too much effort to get.