Why Worldbuilding is Bad

molonel said:

In any case, Tolkien's scholarly work on Sir Gawain was invaluable and ground-breaking. His translation, meh. Having read it a couple of times, I'll never read it again.

Click to expand...

As I said, different strokes for different folks. Preference is subjective, not objective.

Raven Crowking said:

As a related aside:

The creating of setting materials that might not see use in the game would seem to include non-linear dungeon layouts, such as those used in many older non-tournament modules, where the PCs wouldn't necessarily have to hit every room (or even every major encounter) in order to get to the "end". Opposed to this are the linear layouts of tournament modules, where every area had to reasonably be "hit" in order to score properly, and at least some of the early WotC modules, which have fairly linear maps.

(There is an excellent thread analyzing module maps around somewhere; I can try and find a link to it if need be. I believe that it was started by Mallus, but I could be wrong..... )

Anyway, I am wondering how anti-worldbuilding people feel about non-linear maps. Should a map channel you to every possible major encounter?


RC

Click to expand...

Heh, was on holidays and figured I'd pick this back up.

Non-linear maps are perfectly fine. The assumption with a non-linear map is that, while not ever area will be visited, there is a valid chance that any area could be visited. TheShaman's example of 20 different systems for Traveler is a good example of this. While I know nothing of the mechanics of space travel in Traveler, I'm assuming that there is a chance that the players can visit every detailed area that he has created.

That's not a problem. That's simply creating setting.

Now, if he goes ahead, creates all 20 of those worlds and then leads the players around by the nose so that they are forced to visit all 20 of those systems in order that he doesn't waste any of his work, that would be a bad thing.

A very good example of world building as I define it - extraneous information that is separate from the plot - can be found in the Savage Tide AP. Of the 12 adventures, only the first two take place in the city of Sasserine. While the PC's are in Sasserine, they will advance from 1st to 4th or 5th level before leaving. It is assumed that they will not be returning.

In the players guide, Dragon Magazine and in Dungeon Magazine, Sasserine is very finely detailed. A large amount of space is given over to the ruling families of Sasserine. However, that information will never have any impact within the context of the adventures. The PC's are only 5th level at most while in Sasserine. They simply will have no contact with the ruling powers in the city and the ruling powers in the city will have no real interest in them.

That, to me, is an example of the kind of world building, the "six pages of Elven Tea ceremonies" that I was talking about before. This information is completely extraneous. It serves no real purpose within the adventure. Instead of detailing several power families in Sasserine, we could have had extra adventures, or longer encounter descriptions, or whatever. Instead, we have backgrounds and histories of people who will almost certainly not feature in the adventure and will never really have a chance to feature.

The problem with world building is not that you are developing setting. Developing a rich setting is perfectly fine. The problem is when world building is done for its own benefit. When setting details are created distinct from the story or the adventures in which they appear, there is a problem.

I can't speak about what the average DM does; if anything, EN World has taught me that there isn't any hard-and-fast rule about that.

Click to expand...

I think it's self evident. Look what people are doing on a thread nearby; a collaborative setting. When was the last time you saw a collaborative adventure on these boards? About never, if I recall correctly. Worldbuilding is fun but mostly useless, adventure design useful but too much like hard work.

No wonder by default everyone takes the easy option and goes straight to the macro-level, wishy washy worldbuilding dessert, most of the design of which will never see the light of day in-game. So why not skip a good deal of that dubiously useful self-indulgent timewastery and concentrate on something more important, like adventure design? That is, if your interest is actually in running a game.

Hussar said:

A very good example of world building as I define it - extraneous information that is separate from the plot - can be found in the Savage Tide AP. Of the 12 adventures, only the first two take place in the city of Sasserine. While the PC's are in Sasserine, they will advance from 1st to 4th or 5th level before leaving. It is assumed that they will not be returning.

In the players guide, Dragon Magazine and in Dungeon Magazine, Sasserine is very finely detailed. A large amount of space is given over to the ruling families of Sasserine. However, that information will never have any impact within the context of the adventures. The PC's are only 5th level at most while in Sasserine. They simply will have no contact with the ruling powers in the city and the ruling powers in the city will have no real interest in them.

That, to me, is an example of the kind of world building, the "six pages of Elven Tea ceremonies" that I was talking about before. This information is completely extraneous. It serves no real purpose within the adventure. Instead of detailing several power families in Sasserine, we could have had extra adventures, or longer encounter descriptions, or whatever. Instead, we have backgrounds and histories of people who will almost certainly not feature in the adventure and will never really have a chance to feature.

Click to expand...

So, if I understand you right, you believe that there is no chance that the PCs will ask about, or petition, the powerful of the city within those two adventures?

There is no chance that a DM not intending to run the entire AP might want to use the setting information to create adventures of her own (keeping the PCs in Sassarine until 12th level, say)? (This last is relevant as it increases the value of the magazine to those not interested in APs.)

IOW, the assumption with a non-linear adventure is that, while not ever person will be visited, there is a valid chance that any person could be visited. If a person particularly captures the DM's or players' imagination, it almost guarantees that the person will feature in the adventure in some way, shape, or form.

(Also, I note that the AP isn't done yet, so we don't know how relevant the material is to the final chapter.)

The problem with world building is not that you are developing setting. Developing a rich setting is perfectly fine. The problem is when world building is done for its own benefit. When setting details are created distinct from the story or the adventures in which they appear, there is a problem.

Click to expand...

Like that map in White Plume Mountain that mentions Dragotha. Utterly useless to the adventure at hand, and never did anyone any good.

rounser said:

I think it's self evident. Look what people are doing on a thread nearby; a collaborative setting. When was the last time you saw a collaborative adventure on these boards?

Click to expand...

When I participated in one, actually. It was playtested on CM.

Adventure creation tends to be more personal, IME, than setting creation. Once you get to the nitty gritty details, a unified vision of an area is almost always better than a mish-mash. Hence, settings are easier to work on as a collaborative process than adventures.

Or, to put it another way, playing the game requires a collaborative process that defines setting over the course of play, between players and DM. Designing an adventure is generally a solo process because there is a holostic element to the overarching view of the adventure development that doesn't lend itself easily to collaboration.

RC

Hussar said:

The problem with world building is not that you are developing setting. Developing a rich setting is perfectly fine. The problem is when world building is done for its own benefit. When setting details are created distinct from the story or the adventures in which they appear, there is a problem.

Click to expand...

See, I suppose that this is where we differ.

I don't believe that the DM's job is to lay out an Adventure Path. I believe that the DM's job is to lay out potential hooks, and the players decide which hooks to follow. Like the non-linear map, the assumption is that, while not ever area will be visited, there is a valid chance that any area could be visited.

If I detail who's in charge of Long Archer (or a module writer details who's in charge of Sasserine), it isn't up to me to decide exactly how important that detail is going to be. I am not creating a story; I am creating a place in which the PCs can interact to create their own stories. I supply location, hooks, and events against which they can choose to play or not play; I am not the director.

My method of game prep -- detail the local, outline the horizons, rinse, repeat -- works well for this type of game. Some of what I do you would no doubt consider worldbuilding. I consider it presenting options.

And, frankly, I have little interest in games where the PCs don't get to decide where to go and what to do, either as a player or as a DM. The idea that the DM picks the order of sections of the WLD is anathema to my style of DMing; let the players hear rumours of what is to come, and let them choose thier own course, says I.



RC

Raven Crowking said:

So, if I understand you right, you believe that there is no chance that the PCs will ask about, or petition, the powerful of the city within those two adventures?

There is no chance that a DM not intending to run the entire AP might want to use the setting information to create adventures of her own (keeping the PCs in Sassarine until 12th level, say)? (This last is relevant as it increases the value of the magazine to those not interested in APs.)

IOW, the assumption with a non-linear adventure is that, while not ever person will be visited, there is a valid chance that any person could be visited. If a person particularly captures the DM's or players' imagination, it almost guarantees that the person will feature in the adventure in some way, shape, or form.

(Also, I note that the AP isn't done yet, so we don't know how relevant the material is to the final chapter.)

Click to expand...

Wow, this is still going...

Just want to say RK, I totally agree with your point here. From reading Hussar and Rounser's posts I get the impression, and excuse me if this is wrong, that you both either run railroad adventures, or can read your players minds. I can't see how you know what will and will not be interacted with in a session of gameplay. It would frustrate me in a session where it went something like this...

DM: There are torn and tattered wanted posters for the bandit Grok strewn throughout the town proclaiming a reward and asking that any interested parties speak mith Mayor Feold.

Me(as a rogue): I want to find out who the head of the local thieve's guild is and see if I can join.

DM: Uhm...there is no solidified guild for thieve's in this city.

Me: Okay I want to post up at the local taverns and find some prospective "candidates".

DM: Candidates for what?

Me: My thieve's guild I'm starting.

DM:...The reward on the poster is 600gp's

Me: Yeah but once I start my guild I can make more than that through extortion for disposing Grok from numeroushigh-ranking citizens that want him dead.

DM: How about we just stick to this adventure I've spent my time crafting.

Me:...Yeah, ok whatever.

Hussar said:

Non-linear maps are perfectly fine. The assumption with a non-linear map is that, while not ever area will be visited, there is a valid chance that any area could be visited. TheShaman's example of 20 different systems for Traveler is a good example of this. While I know nothing of the mechanics of space travel in Traveler, I'm assuming that there is a chance that the players can visit every detailed area that he has created.

That's not a problem. That's simply creating setting.

Click to expand...

I see. Wait a minute. No I don't. If that's not world building, and I mean literally world building, what is?

Now, if he goes ahead, creates all 20 of those worlds and then leads the players around by the nose so that they are forced to visit all 20 of those systems in order that he doesn't waste any of his work, that would be a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, but it wouldn't be world building.

A very good example of world building as I define it...

Click to expand...

You know. I'm not really interested in how you define it. I was hoping we'd be able to have a conversion about world builiding as it is commonly defined.

But then again, probably 5 pages back I pointed out that the only way Mr. Harrison's position was defensible is if you defined world building to be negative by definition. But, if you define something to be negative by definition and say, "This straw man concept I've created which is bad by definition is bad.", you really haven't said anything interesting.

The problem with world building is not that you are developing setting. Developing a rich setting is perfectly fine. The problem is when world building is done for its own benefit. When setting details are created distinct from the story or the adventures in which they appear, there is a problem.

Click to expand...

No. There is only a problem if the narrator/writer/story teller/game referee 'leads one around by the nose' to the detriment of the story/narrative structure/player free will, and that is an activity that has nothing to do with world building because it occurs after the whole process which is normally defined as world building in the stardard usage of the term is already over.

Hi, this post is very informative; however I would like some specific information. If someone can help me then please send me a private message. Best Regards,

shahzadmasih said:

Hi, this post is very informative; however I would like some specific information. If someone can help me then please send me a private message. Best Regards,

Click to expand...

Since you don't seem to have private messaging available, why not ask your question here?