Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think this sort of thing is always required, but on many occasions I've found having king lists handy. The reason is, if I am just making it up on the fly, I find it too easy to be inconsistent. I also think it is a good way to help establish some basic guideposts for the history of the place, so when you are doing things like making ancient artifacts, you have some context to draw on. If you don't find this useful, that's great. Like I've been saying the whole time. People should run and prep however they want. But I can honestly tell you, I've found things like kings lists to be far from frivolous in my own campaigns and a very useful tool. Part of that may have to do with the kinds of games I run.

Oh sure....I was just stating my preference. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what you’re describing. Just that I’ve found for my games my prep time is better spent in other ways.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think so. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] doesn't count this as worldbuilding, though - I think because in and of itself it implicates nothing beyond the actual situation currently in play.

I'm sure he doesn't, which is fine. I can understand his take on worldbuilding, even if I think his definition is too narrow. But it is certainly not a case of excessive detail to pick a monster for an appropriate location or function in a dungoen or other location.

Why I consider it worldbuilding in the broader sense is because I think it does implicate things, or at least it potentially does.

I don't quite agree - I'll explain why below.

This seems pretty plausible. Eg if you read that hobgoblins hate orcs, you may well be prompted to make a hobgoblin/elf conflict part of your setting.

But you don't have to. You can use hobgoblins and just ignore the bits about elves. I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s concern (at least as I understand it) is that the more the account of what an X is presupposes Ys as well (kobolds as dragon-slaves is, again, an example of this) the harder it becomes to use the game element but ignore/strip away the lore. Expectations are also part of this: if you use hobgoblins then players expect them to be hostile to any elves that turn up; but maybe no elves do. The fact that hobgoblins are said to hate elves doesn't mean that the use of hobgoblins in play signals, in and of itself, the use of elves. Whereas if you use kobolds, players start wondering when the dragon is going to show up.

I think it is these different ways lore can be used, and these different ways it affects expectations, that tend to make it unhelpful just to group it all together as worldbuilding.

Absolutely, we're all free to alter the monster descriptions and functions to our particular tastes and purposes. But that's why I said "taken as written...". And sure, this could create expectations at the table, and sometimes such expectations can cause a problem. For Hussar, that certainly seems to be the case, which makes his view understandable.

But I don't know if that means it's an issue for other groups. I mean...I expect we've all played against expectations at some point. We've all used a monster in a way that was different than expected....a brute that uses its head, a monster with an unexpected ability, and so on.....and the reason those things become interesting is because they subvert expectation. But I don't think any of us would say that subverting expectation is always bad.

So when I as a GM decide to include hobgoblins in my world, but instead of being militaristic humanoids that hate elves, I make them humanoids that have been persecuted by some of the other races of the world because far in the past, they were militaristic and warred with many other races. So I've changed the lore for hobgoblins in the game world.

How is that not a case of me building a world? Making a different setting than the default or expected version.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm sorry but I'm still failing to see how worldbuilding = bad. I can understand one's preference for more or less worldbuilding (and thus picking a playstyle that speaks to that preference)... but so far, and maybe I've missed it in this enormous thread, what I haven't seen is a good argument for why it should be considered "bad" as a default. I mean it's a hobby, it's supposed to be fun and if for some people fleshing out their imaginary world or reading about the numerous details found in a published imaginary setting increases the enjoyment of participating in the hobby, I can't see how that could be considered a bad thing, especially when (in the case of a published world it can be ignored by those who don't want it) or in the case of a homebrew isn't impacting the game in a negative way for the players. Which brings me to another point...

How much worldbuilding should be considered excessive... well IMO, that's totally dependent on the players of the game. I know my players, I know what they're likely to seek information about, what they are likely to investigate in a given situation and even what they are likely to do in a general sense (and if I honestly have no clue I will ask them outside of playing time about their plans before our next gaming session)... so while the details I create may seem superfluous or excessive to someone not running for my group, they aren't for me because even though they may not be used in the game session they are providing a buffer that makes running a game a more comfortable experience for me with my particular group. I mean really that's the only measure that matters to me... whether the worldbuilding that has been undertaken (irregardless of actual direct usage in tonight's particular adventure) has enhanced the play experience in some way.

Well, I agree that you are right and that it will vary greatly from person to person and from gaming group to gaming group. And I don't think that worldbuilding is inherently bad. The idea from the article in the OP is that you do not need to detail an entire world before you even begin to write. Now, the article is more about fiction writing than RPGing, so right there, there's a bit of loss in relevance.

But to translate that idea to RPGing, I think it's a valid concern. How much do we need to detail ahead of time? Again, this will vary, as you mention. But in general, I think that most GMs can likely get away with less worldbuilding than they think is necessary.

I used to do a lot of worldbuilding ahead of play. I found it to be entertaining in and of itself. But I do think it tended to lock me in to what I wanted the game to be about. Not completely, but at least partially. It didn't matter if my players expressed little interest in Cool Idea A that I introduced....I would find a way to get them to engage with it. Now, very often the players wouldn't mind and they'd accept that's the way the game is going, so let's go. But what if I didn't feel the need to shift things back to what I wanted? What would have come up? Did I miss out on something spontaneous and more in line with what the players would have wanted, and which was at least as cool as Cool Idea A?

I mean, when people talk about what makes a good GM, adaptability is one of the top qualities that is mentioned. So I think that's what it boils down to; worldbuilding should be a tool that can be used to help the game. It should not be the point of the game.

These days, I still come up with ideas ahead of time. But I keep them loosely defined. I keep things flexible so that I'm not so married to my pre-written material that I can't let it go in favor of an idea that comes up spontaneously in play.

This applies to backstory, too, which I think also gets criticized in a similar way. So much of the backstory that is done by a GM won't actually come up in play. Sure, it may inform things that impact play, especially GM decisions, but it remains an unknown factor from the players' perspectives. So again, best to keep this stuff minimal. Have a basic idea of the lineage of the current king and how he rose to power. You don't need a full family tree and detailed history for this guy. I don't think having that info is inherently bad...but how else could that time have been spent? Perhaps there is a more productive way to prepare for the game than to write up this level of detail.

So I think that the criticism has some merit. I don't think it's anything like a universal truth. Nor do I think that it tends to be a huge problem in most cases because most players and GMs will likely talk about this stuff, and try to resolve any problems.

But I do think it's something that each GM should keep in mind. Something to be aware of when you are GMing and working on worldbuilding or writing backstory. It's a potential pitfall, and it can be avoided. But you have to know about it to avoid it.

Now, when it comes to published products and the amount of space they devote to worldbuilding...in that case, I think a variety of products is best. Something like Vornheim the city guide which is entirely utilitarian in its approach is just as valid as something like the Grand History of the Realms, which is purely setting background. I don't get the desire to limit such products to one extreme or the other.

 

[pemerton]

I'm sorry but I'm still failing to see how worldbuilding = bad. I can understand one's preference for more or less worldbuilding (and thus picking a playstyle that speaks to that preference)... but so far, and maybe I've missed it in this enormous thread, what I haven't seen is a good argument for why it should be considered "bad" as a default.

Well, obviously you haven't seen a *good* argument that it's bad, because you think worldbuilding is good!

But various posters have put sincere and reasoned explanations of why they think that, as a default, worldbuilding isn't helpful and can be a barnacle on the hull of RPGing. You just happen not to agree with them!

 

[pemerton]

I agree with you that you can ignore bits of what is written. However, ignoring bits of what is written and what [MENTION=61721]Hawke[/MENTION]yfan wrote "Taken as written, the inclusion of hobgoblins implies the inclusion of elves." are mutually exclusive positions. You cannot both "take what is written" and "ignore the bits about elves." One includes all of what is written and the other doesn't.

I'll repeat what I said:

If I place hobgoblins in my AD&D game, and I also place some elves (or a player brings along a PC elf), then the MM tells us that the hobgoblins hate the elves.

But the mere presence of hobgoblins in the game does not imply that any elves are part of the game. And I don't have to ignore any lore to produce that result. I just have to not introduce any elves into play!

Absolutely, we're all free to alter the monster descriptions and functions to our particular tastes and purposes. But that's why I said "taken as written...".

Using hobgoblins in my game, and not using elves in my game, is not "altering a monster description" nor is it "altering a monster function". It's just not using elves, and therefore not activating some particular part of the hobgoblin description.

AD&D hobgoblins also have a chance to detect sloping passages, like a dwarf (the chance is 40%). That doesn't mean that if I build a dungeon that has hobgoblins in it, yet no sloping passages, I'm changing the description or function of hobgoblins!

 

[pemerton]

For those who think that lore is worldbuilding:

The AD&D MM describes giant rats as coming from Sumatra, rakshasa as coming from India, ogre magi as coming from Japan, and (in Latin) gold dragons as coming from China. Does that mean that Asia (the actualy Asia of earth where all these places are found) is, by default, part of all AD&D worlds? I've never encountered anyone who thinks so.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For those who think that lore is worldbuilding:

The AD&D MM describes giant rats as coming from Sumatra, rakshasa as coming from India, ogre magi as coming from Japan, and (in Latin) gold dragons as coming from China. Does that mean that Asia (the actualy Asia of earth where all these places are found) is, by default, part of all AD&D worlds? I've never encountered anyone who thinks so.

Does this matter? There are more versions of the Monster Manual that don't make such references.

 

[pemerton]

Does this matter? There are more versions of the Monster Manual that don't make such references.

Well, you seem to be asserting that the AD&D Monster Manual, with its reference to hobgoblins hating elves, is worldbuidling - to the extent that if I drop hobgoblins into my dungeon I've now implicated the existence of elves.

But no one thinks that using giant rats implicates that Sumatra is part of my gameworld!

I don't see the difference between the elves and the Asian localities. Which is to say, buying a Monster Manual, and then using monsters from it, is not worldbuilding just because some of those monsters have various bits and pieces of lore mentioned.

 

[pemerton]

But if the Phantom of the Opera was a RPG, then we know what happened, and we know exactly how much setting was required - namely, the opera house and the subterranean lair beneath it.

That is - at least as I understand it - @Hussar (i) is pointing out that a story can proceed without worldbuilding beyond the immediate setting/situation in which the action unfolds, and (ii) is asserting that this is possible for RPGing.

Then it's not an RPG. In an RPG I can talk about things outside the opera house. What you are describing is just a bunch of people sitting around reading a script, not a game where people roleplay and can ask questions beyond a building that they are in.

I'll try again:

First, if the Phantom of the Opera was an RPG then it woudln't have a script! Rather, the "script" would be the transcript of an episode of RPGing.

Second, if a transcript of an episode of RPGing gave us something resembling The Phantom of the Opera, we would have an intance of an episode of RPGing that required, as setting, an opera house and a subterranean lair.

Three, it is possible for a transcript of an episode of RPGing to give us something like that.

I hope never to play with a DM that considers one building as all that is needed for a setting or adventure.

Well, here are some fairly well-known examples of adventures that, as published, are expected to take place in a single building:

B1 In Search of the Unknown

The Haunted Keep, a sample dungeon in Moldvay Basic

C2 The Ghost Tower of Inverness

C1 The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan

S1 The Tomb of Horrors

G1 The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief​

I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting at the moment.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, you seem to be asserting that the AD&D Monster Manual, with its reference to hobgoblins hating elves, is worldbuidling - to the extent that if I drop hobgoblins into my dungeon I've now implicated the existence of elves.

But no one thinks that using giant rats implicates that Sumatra is part of my gameworld!

I don't see the difference between the elves and the Asian localities. Which is to say, buying a Monster Manual, and then using monsters from it, is not worldbuilding just because some of those monsters have various bits and pieces of lore mentioned.

No, I said the lore is more like a brick that you can use to worldbuild. But you can change it however you like.....thereby building your world to your tastes.

There's no reason that someone can't place a campaign in the ancient world and use those exact references from the AD&D Monster Manual, placing the monsters in areas where they sprang from myth.

Buying the monster manual is of course not worldbuilding, I don't know why you keep repeating that. Choosing which monsters to use from it, and whether to use the lore given or change it for your own purposes? Yes, that is worldbuilding as I conceive it.