Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Maxperson]

I'd posit that the reason that people react so strongly to "world building is bad" is that they likely fall pretty heavily somewhere on the list I gave a few pages back and they can't handle the idea that their DMing isn't the perfect approach to gaming.

Or else it's because it has no inherent property of good or bad, so calling it bad is wrong. You can dislike it, but it can't be bad. I can like it, but it can't be good.

 

[Hussar]

If you're playing/running Isle of Dread as a one-off adventure then sure, what you say is absolutely true.

But I'm assuming in all cases here that these adventures are embedded in an ongoing campaign...which in this case means the PCs were in X for a reason (even if only to get on the ship to sail to Y) and are...were...intent on going to Y for a reason. That they were in X means I've had to narrate at least a bit of description about the place; and whatever Y is would have to have had some sort of narration or description or clues because otherwise why would they be going there?

We're also told that it's far from the nearest settlement and away from travelled routes, strongly implying that the PCs will not be easily able to go back to town and resupply and-or recruit new characters to replace their dead. Because of this, and because low-level D&D play tends toward resource management, a DM is going to want to know how many days it takes to travel from town to the adventure site so as to monitor the PCs' food supply...which makes positioning both the dungeon and the "nearest settlement" on a map a rather useful thing to do. Noting any intervening terrain features that may help or hinder travel would also be useful. It's also trivially easy to do these things; then later as the campaign goes on they can be expanded upon until soon enough you've the genesis of a game world.

Me, I just prefer to move that work from within the campaign to before it starts. That way I can think through the in-play implications of what I've designed* and tweak it to suit.

* - a process I manage to mess up at every opportunity, but hey - live and learn...

Lanefan

But, in my mind, none of that is world building. That's just basic adventure design because all of that material is going to be used in the adventure. Totally agree that this is necessary and a good use of DM prep time.

Note what you leave out though. No mention of the history of the area. What happened here ten years ago? Fifty? A hundred? Who, other than world builders, cares? It's not needed for the adventure, it's not important, so, skip it.

IOW, you didn't need to do any world building to run your In Search of the Unknown adventure. None. ((Well, unless you go with [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s rather broader definition that everything you do is world building)) It's all necessary stuff that you should do as a DM. Who runs the town? Who lives in the town? Again, who cares? It's not important. Add as needed. It's a town. In the town you can find anything you would normally expect to find in a town. End of story.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think so. A good analogy for this would be if [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said, "I don't like vehicles, because they're too big. Cars, trucks, semis, and airplanes are just too much. That's why I ride a motorcycle. That's not a vehicle." Pointing out that a motorcycle IS a vehicle, just a smaller one that he does like is not splitting hairs. It's similarly not splitting hairs to point out the fact that he does worldbuild, even if on a smaller scale.

Funny how all your definition jokes keep requiring the change of definitions of known words. I've posted the definition of world building, a few times now, and you've still insisted on the notion that your definition is the only possible one. Does make winning a discussion easier when you think that you can control what words mean.

-------
[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] - what I would like to see is a heck of a lot less world building, both at the table and in publication. Instead of Dragon+ having 3/4 of its material (and Dragon before it wasn't much different) revolve around world building, focus more on practical stuff - things that can actually, directly be used at the table.

Give me setting material in a form I can directly use - adventures are great. Setting guides that spend page after page after page detailing Elven Tea Ceremonies, not so much.

Given that there are about 20000 pages of setting material for Forgotten Realms, do we actually need any more? Don't give me the history of that town, give me a town with 6 interesting locations fully statted up, with maps, that I can plug and play.

Don't give me a Mordenkainens Monster book, full of setting crap that I will never use. Give me less monsters, but, in a form that I can just drop into my game with little or no work.

As a DM, my advice is GET TO THE POINT. Quit faffing about with pointless trivia and trivial encounters that are immediately forgotten. Endless dice fapping to fill in the time between stuff that actually matters. Endless, interminable history lessons that are irrelevant to the game and just as quickly forgotten. Why faff about getting to the adventure? Just GET TO THE ADVENTURE.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'd posit that the reason that people react so strongly to "world building is bad" is that they likely fall pretty heavily somewhere on the list I gave a few pages back and they can't handle the idea that their DMing isn't the perfect approach to gaming.

I am fully aware my GMing style isn't the perfect approach to gaming. I think I have all kinds of flaws as a GM. And I don't think there is one, perfect style of play. What I do know, is world building has made my games more successful and fun when I've engaged it well. I just see it as one tool in the box of tools i have to draw on. Like I said earlier, my prep approach shifts depending on what I am trying to do. If I am doing monster of the week, I am not going to lean as much on world building. If I am trying to launch a long term campaign, where we just kind of see where things go, I think world building is a lot more helpful. I am not at all advocating a one-size-fits all approach.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As a DM, my advice is GET TO THE POINT. Quit faffing about with pointless trivia and trivial encounters that are immediately forgotten. Endless dice fapping to fill in the time between stuff that actually matters. Endless, interminable history lessons that are irrelevant to the game and just as quickly forgotten. Why faff about getting to the adventure? Just GET TO THE ADVENTURE.

I think you should just relax, and if this is a problem in your group, consider that it might not be the best fit for you. But I definitely think you are far too aggressive in pushing your play style here.

In terms of the other stuff you listed, like I said before, there are tons of products out there if you are not happy with official Pathfinder or WOTC material. I don't run WOTC stuff anymore. But I also don't complain about what is being published, because I found stuff that fit my concerns. I think if you look beyond this material, to other products (and there are a lot of different approaches available out there), you'd be happier. But no reason to scream at people who play the game differently from you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Funny how all your definition jokes keep requiring the change of definitions of known words. I've posted the definition of world building, a few times now, and you've still insisted on the notion that your definition is the only possible one. Does make winning a discussion easier when you think that you can control what words mean.

-------

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] - what I would like to see is a heck of a lot less world building, both at the table and in publication. Instead of Dragon+ having 3/4 of its material (and Dragon before it wasn't much different) revolve around world building, focus more on practical stuff - things that can actually, directly be used at the table.
.

Whose table though? If you only want to see change at your table, no one objects to 'world building is bad for Hussar'. If you want others to follow suit, if you think we are doing something wrong because we see value in world building at our table...you can see how people might react negatively.

In terms of published material from big companies like WOTC, people argue because they all want their style to be catered to. If you are going to make an argument for D&D or Pathfinder to be different than they are, you will meet resistance from people who like things the way they are. Again, I don't play either of those anymore (largely because the products do things that just don't suit what I want at the table).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think so. A good analogy for this would be if [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said, "I don't like vehicles, because they're too big. Cars, trucks, semis, and airplanes are just too much. That's why I ride a motorcycle. That's not a vehicle." Pointing out that a motorcycle IS a vehicle, just a smaller one that he does like is not splitting hairs. It's similarly not splitting hairs to point out the fact that he does worldbuild, even if on a smaller scale.

I think your definition is a little too expansive.

 

[Maxperson]

Funny how all your definition jokes keep requiring the change of definitions of known words. I've posted the definition of world building, a few times now, and you've still insisted on the notion that your definition is the only possible one. Does make winning a discussion easier when you think that you can control what words mean.

Funny how your own quotes back me up. The link you provided states very clearly that the goal of worldbuilding in a game is to create context for the story(plot) and provide the story(plot) a foundation. Pointing at different formats of entertainment like novels and movies doesn't change how worldbuilding works in a game.

 

[Maxperson]

I think your definition is a little too expansive.

What would you take out?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because, typically, a narrated daily log with random encounters is pretty much all that connective bits amounts to.

Sure, that is often the case, and if so, I’d agree with you and not bother.

If it was actually important, you'd take the time to actually make an adventure about it (see, for example, the Paizo remake of Isle of Dread where they actually spend three complete adventures just getting to the village on the island).

Have you never done this? Do your PCs just show up at each new adventure location? Again, I understand just getting to the point, but I also think that journeys can be adventures, too.

There’s no reason that the PCs shouldn’t encounter pirates on their way to the isle, or any other manner of adventure. As you say, Paizo expanded on the idea into multiple parts of their adventure path.

Why is your assumption that others would most likely just do random encounters for X days until they reach the island? What are you basing this on?

But, for the most part, it's utterly forgettable cruft that just wastes everyone's time at the table.

Again, I would agree in the sense that I’d prefer not to just do random encounters. But my preference isn’t “right”. There may be plenty of people who enjoy exactly that.