Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Imaro]

Ok, specific criticisms of world building:

It takes away time from the DM that would be better spent on developing adventures. We do not have unlimited time, and much of the world building stuff that goes on has little or nothing to do with the specific adventure that the players are doing.

Not a specific criticism of world-building. Let's be real one can only spend so much time on adventure building (especially if you want to customize the adventures based on the choices of the PC's).sonally speaking one adventure usually lasts my group anywhere from 2-4 sessions.... so that leaves plenty of time for world-building. Your assertion also ignores the subset of world builders who do their work before the campaign takes place leaving plenty of time for adventure building while the campaign is in progress.

If anything this seems to be an issue with time management nd could be an issue if you spend too much time on any one thing while doing camapign/game prep.

[*]Worldbuilding replaces more practical elements in supplements. I mentioned earlier the old Dragon Magazine Ecology of articles. Replacing them with a more here is a page of information and three to four pages of plug and play adventure material is far more useful to a DM.

This presupposes everyone finds the exact same things of practical use. I can only speak for myself but I've founs fiction, setting elewments, stats, pre-built traps/monsters, etc. all useful at some point in time... Do I find some elements more practical for my usage than others? Yeah, sure but I don't pre-suppose everyone creates in the same way and thus what I find useful will be the same for everyone else. When you say worldbuilding could be replaced with more practical elements you're making the pretty broad assertion that worldbuilding isn't useful on a practical level and for many that isn't true... in fact some would find your pre-made, plug and play adventure material useless at a practical level because they customize adventure material for their game and probably prefer inspiration to a pre-set encounter. As an example...I know I never used the pre-madse encounters laid out in the 4e monster manual so for me they weren't useful at all but for others they were probably a godsend.

[*]Worldbuilding and particularly game lore, becomes deeply entrenched and virtually impossible to change. The Great Wheel and attending arguments is a perfect example of this. New ideas become judged, not on their actual value, but on how well they toe the line with what came before.

Eh... I'm not sure how we judge something as subjective as camapign lore on "actual value". It's subjective and people like what they like... and yues if you change what they like to something else you should expect to get pushback. Again not sure this is an actual criticism of worldbuilding since you're effectively saying worldbuilding is bad because some people prefer one world to another... so the solution is to what? Not have any worlds or lore? Huh?

[*]Much of world building is what I called before "Six page treatises on Elven Tea Ceremonies". As more and more world building gets piled on, less and less of anything of actual use at the table gets shoved in.

You mean actual use by you... right? The thing is that someone, somewhere out there is probably making an adventure their group is loving centered around elven tea ceremonies. Let's step back and see what happens when we apply this to anything else... The more and more monsters they create the less and less of anything of actual use at the table gets shoved in... but if just one group is using one of those obscure monsters (or tea ceremonies) to enhance their game how is it a bad thing because you personally choose not to?

[*]DM's sometimes mistake world building for adventure building. The "Tour Des Realms" example that I brought up earlier where the campaign was more about showing off the DM's beautifully wrought urn rather than an actual adventure. ((Note, this probably applies double to fantasy genre novel writers))
[/list]

Any criticism that starts of with sometimes isn't a good one, again this isn't a specific criticism of worldbuilding, it's your dislike for a a specific type of campaign (exploration of a world or sandbox). The thing is that there are players who would enjoy this sort of campaign, I mean it's practically what a hexcrawl is and is probably one ofthe primary reason many buy licensed settings. Now if there's nothing exciting in this world they are exploring well that's a problem with the type of world that was built but is not in and of itself a problem of world-building.

How's that for specific criticisms?

2.5 to 3 out of 10 is what I'm rating it.

 

[Afrodyte]

The best advice for worldbuilding I've found yet is adapted from Apocalypse World: hold on lightly. That simple advice has done more for my thinking on the matter than anything else I've seen. It doesn't say don't worldbuild, or don't plan, it just simply says that if you're more interested in staying true to what you've already written, you're going to miss big opportunities for awesome stuff in game. So, hold onto your plans and your worldbuilding lightly and always be on the look out for the play presenting something better.

This is pretty much the extent of my worldbuilding. Setting up major themes, mood, aesthetic and (most importantly) the kinds of characters who'd be ideal for the game. All of the stuff worldbuilding I actually do (as streamlined as it is) is designed to give players ideas and options to enhance the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Someone will say "D&D is X" (talking about the game text) and someone else will say "Well our game is nothing like that".

If morrus had a nickel (or a farthing, I guess) for every time that happened, the site would be funded until it runs aground on the Y10k problem.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It moves this work from during play to before play starts. You still need to know where the adventures are located, what's around them, where the nearby towns are, what the terrain is like, the distances involved, and a few boatloads of other stuff - might as well have this all nailed down ahead of time. Then, even if you decide to drop an adventure into a somewhat random place later you've already got all the surrounding stuff you need, rather than having to do it all (and record it all!) on the fly.

Why do I need to know all of this stuff? What I need to know is what is at stake, what the conflict is (IE what do the PC(s) and NPC(s) need that brings them into opposition). I need a dramatic story arc which journeys from story initiation to high and low points which establish and resolve conflict until a climax is reached, where the issues at hand are finally settled, followed by some sort of wrap up. It is surprisingly unimportant where and even when (in game world terms) these things take place.

This applies only to prepublished worlds, I guess. What we're talking about here is mostly concerning homebrew worldbuilding, I think; and if a homebrewer wants to write Ecology Of... articles for all the creatures in her world then more power to her. I ain't gonna do it.

Well, I suspect most home brewers aren't really building in vast depth. No doubt there are a few exceptions...

Again this seems more relevant to pre-published worlds than homebrew. Yes homebrew lore becomes entrenched too, but that's a good thing: it means the world is gaining traction with the players and that you've probably done it right.

Or that the flexibility is leaving the setting! I'm somewhat sympathetic, but I will note that when you start out with a new group of players they almost invariably have no appreciation of the groups who went before them.

This is always a risk, but an acceptable one. Any DM building her own world is going to tailor her write-ups to her own interests and gloss over things of little interest to her.

For example: I've written up detailed rules for ship-to-ship naval combat, because I like that sort of stuff and have a bit of knowledge. But anything to do with horses? Don't ask me...

Exactly, but this is irrelevant to the interests of the PLAYERS!

World-building and adventure-building can sometimes go hand in hand - as a part of building the world you can also come up with ideas for what would be threatening it that the PCs might have to deal with. Having a solid history for your world is hugely helpful for this!

I used to think this, until I tried it the other way. I would never go back. The players are far more into it now than ever they were when I was putting forth my own pre-arranged list of adventure ideas.

And if a DM is smart about it (and if the world is any good!) the world will quietly show itself off during the run of play without the DM having to push it at all.

To what end?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That despite their best attempts those RPGs still occupy no more than a very small niche in the hobby tells me all I need to know.

And yet some of them sell quite well. OWoD, despite lacking a lot of the narrative features of modern Story Now, STILL unseated D&D and helped drive TSR out of business.

And, the truth is, ALL RPGS, regardless of their classification, that aren't D&D are just a rounding error in the historical sales of D&D. Its not a matter of 'some types of RPG are rejected', its a matter of 'if it isn't ACTUAL D&D it won't sell' to all evidence. Even games like PF, which has been fairly popular, is now pretty much entirely eclipsed in sales by 5e, to the degree that Paizo is doing a version roll, which I can only interpret as a sign that sales are seriously off.

Other 'popular' RPGs like 13a, Traveler, Eclipse Phase, Savage Worlds, the FFG Star Wars game, etc. are all not even 5 or 10% of the sales of 5e. Its just a fact, the world equates RPGs with D&D. Fantasy is the most obvious and typical genre for role play and D&D has the catalog of material, market presence, and installed player base which virtually guarantee no other style of RP is going to get much traction, except amongst people who have played a lot and are well-versed in different types of game. Many of us 'move on', and IMHO a good basic core Story Now game, maybe something like DW, would be just as popular as D&D is, were it to have been the original RPG. Anyway, its a sort of silly argument because nothing is ever going to resolve it.

 

[Lanefan]

Why do I need to know all of this stuff? What I need to know is what is at stake, what the conflict is (IE what do the PC(s) and NPC(s) need that brings them into opposition). I need a dramatic story arc which journeys from story initiation to high and low points which establish and resolve conflict until a climax is reached, where the issues at hand are finally settled, followed by some sort of wrap up.

If that's all a campaign consists of - a single story arc - it's a campaign I'm not going to bother with.

I look for something with multiple interweaving story arcs, dealt with by multiple parties that now and then meet and merge and split, where as one story ends another is half-done and a third is just getting started, where the characters come and go but the party (or parties) is forever, where there's no time pressure and the campaign can go on for many real-world years.

For that, I'll design a world.

It is surprisingly unimportant where and even when (in game world terms) these things take place.

Until you start trying to interweave them and need to know exactly who is where when and what happens where to see with influence if any is had on other PCs or events. For this, quite precise tracking of time and place becomes rather essential.

Example: I as DM know Party A is spending most of the month of Eolna in Torcha (a town), training and sorting out their treasury. While running Party B (some of whom are known to Party A) it becomes clear they too will reach Torcha around mid-Eolna...which means there's a very good chance the parties will meet and be able to swap stories and info - and characters, and players, if they want. What this informs me as DM is that sometime soon I'll probably need to either run a joint session of both parties or be ready for a storm of emails.

Well, I suspect most home brewers aren't really building in vast depth. No doubt there are a few exceptions...

The trick, I've learned, is to put the depth in the right areas. History is vital. Geography is vital to a point. Pantheons are vital. Cultures are vital to a point. And the local stuff is far more vital to have in place ahead of time than the non-local stuff the PCs aren't likely to see for a while.

Or that the flexibility is leaving the setting! I'm somewhat sympathetic, but I will note that when you start out with a new group of players they almost invariably have no appreciation of the groups who went before them.

You're making an assumption, which in my case at least is incorrect: I don't recycle my settings. New campaign = new setting.

But for players coming in partway through, yes there's lots of lore to catch up on. Kind of unavoidable.

Exactly, but this is irrelevant to the interests of the PLAYERS!

Why does that matter? When I'm doing this stuff I don't have players yet.

I used to think this, until I tried it the other way. I would never go back. The players are far more into it now than ever they were when I was putting forth my own pre-arranged list of adventure ideas.

Depends on your players, I suppose. I'm not sure what would happen were I to one night look at my players and say "Hey, I've got nothing in mind as DM - what do your characters do next?". Maybe I'll try this at some logical break point when they're in town after an adventure, see what happens.

To what end?

The end of having it known by all that there's a solid foundation underpinning all this.

Lanefan

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So, in a theft by stealth score against a tough target, the engagement roll established a risky entry, so I placed the play outside the target building but close and in an undiscovered condition. The issue was that there were more guards than anticipated, so the initial plan to access the kitchen window (the detail of the stealth approach) was in jeopardy. I set down two clocks for this scene -- access the window and gain entry, a four clock, and Alarm is raised! an six clock (the numbers are the number of segments in the clock, fill the clock and it's 'thing' happens). The Alarm clock is filled by failures, the window clock by successes. A player declared a dash across the street to the shadows under the window. No effort had been expended to determine the guard patrols, so I declared the action to be risky with normal results. A failure occurs, and the Alarm clock got 2 ticks as the PC made the dash but was exposed as a guard came around the corner. A moment away from it going pear shaped! But, in allowing actions against any clocks, the next player declared an action to try step out and knock out the guard before an alarm was raised. That seemed a desperate action, with limited results because the guards were a tier higher than the PCs. This time a critical success was rolled, so the player got full success and then pushed for increased effect so guard was knocked out and dragged into an alley, removing all the ticks on the Alarm clock. The players are still no closer to gaining access to the kitchen window (they've not advanced that clock) and now have a possible liability (an unconscious guard in the alley across the street), but they've reset the challenge of the scene back to start.

Ciocks are just awesome.

You pretty much describe my enthusiasm for 4e-style SCs. Really, the mechanics are pretty close to the same thing. I mean, you can technically introduce multiple 'clocks', but I'm betting strongly that a 'success clock' and a 'failure clock' are the very strong choice for standard template. I'm also betting that the failure clock is almost always the smaller of the two. This is just a basic function of how dramatic tension is most effectively created in play. Anyway, I'm sure it works quite well, as your example could be almost literally word-for-word the result of an SC, and I know that technique well.

It would be interesting to see what contrasts there are in the two processes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If that's all a campaign consists of - a single story arc - it's a campaign I'm not going to bother with.

I look for something with multiple interweaving story arcs, dealt with by multiple parties that now and then meet and merge and split, where as one story ends another is half-done and a third is just getting started, where the characters come and go but the party (or parties) is forever, where there's no time pressure and the campaign can go on for many real-world years.

For that, I'll design a world.

I'm not seeing the logical structure of this argument. Just because I phrased my question in terms of a single 'story arc' (which is really the most basic complete dramatic unit I can refer to in this specific context) doesn't say anything about the capacity or lack of capacity to use the same technique more than once.

I think I can run 5 story arcs with Story Now as well as one.

Until you start trying to interweave them and need to know exactly who is where when and what happens where to see with influence if any is had on other PCs or events. For this, quite precise tracking of time and place becomes rather essential.

No, not any more than I need exact tracking of geographical locations or other things! If its dramatic for 2 people to meet, and can be established as not absurd that they could, then they do! This is perfectly acceptable in Hollywood. Heck, half the time it IS absurd and STILL nobody seems to mind.

Example: I as DM know Party A is spending most of the month of Eolna in Torcha (a town), training and sorting out their treasury. While running Party B (some of whom are known to Party A) it becomes clear they too will reach Torcha around mid-Eolna...which means there's a very good chance the parties will meet and be able to swap stories and info - and characters, and players, if they want. What this informs me as DM is that sometime soon I'll probably need to either run a joint session of both parties or be ready for a storm of emails.

The trick, I've learned, is to put the depth in the right areas. History is vital. Geography is vital to a point. Pantheons are vital. Cultures are vital to a point. And the local stuff is far more vital to have in place ahead of time than the non-local stuff the PCs aren't likely to see for a while.

Again, I would gate that on what is interesting, not some mechanistic idea of time and space. I mean, its a non-technological world, missing someone by an hour is as good as a year in most cases. Its not like you create some irredeemable cloud of unreality.

You're making an assumption, which in my case at least is incorrect: I don't recycle my settings. New campaign = new setting.

But for players coming in partway through, yes there's lots of lore to catch up on. Kind of unavoidable.

Fine, but not really an advert FOR world building

Why does that matter? When I'm doing this stuff I don't have players yet.

Exactly my point.

Depends on your players, I suppose. I'm not sure what would happen were I to one night look at my players and say "Hey, I've got nothing in mind as DM - what do your characters do next?". Maybe I'll try this at some logical break point when they're in town after an adventure, see what happens.

Well, I don't ever do THAT! I have them generate some character backstory at the start, and then engage that material with the first scene, and build on that for the 2nd scene, etc. The players are ALWAYS telling me what their PCs will do, but they ALWAYS have the feeling they better do SOMETHING! Or if they don't, and don't want to, then I'd narrate how things go in the world until they decide they find it engaging.

The end of having it known by all that there's a solid foundation underpinning all this.

I honestly don't know what that means

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not seeing the logical structure of this argument. Just because I phrased my question in terms of a single 'story arc' (which is really the most basic complete dramatic unit I can refer to in this specific context) doesn't say anything about the capacity or lack of capacity to use the same technique more than once.

I think I can run 5 story arcs with Story Now as well as one.

The impression I got from reading your ealier post was that you only needed one; and because of that there'd be no point building a whole world around it.

No, not any more than I need exact tracking of geographical locations or other things! If its dramatic for 2 people to meet, and can be established as not absurd that they could, then they do! This is perfectly acceptable in Hollywood. Heck, half the time it IS absurd and STILL nobody seems to mind.

Hollywood oftentimes doesn't even try to be realistic. Further, Hollywood is always constrained by a length-of-show time limit that simply doesn't apply in RPGs.

That said, I don't mind Hollywood-style meetings in the game provided they're not too ridiculous. But if I know character A is at place X on a given date and character B is at place Y on that same date I know they're not going to meet.

More importantly, I need to know what effects or fallout the actions of one party might have on another; which sometimes mean I need to keep careful track of when things happen.

An example from my current game: two independent parties, members of whom knew each other, running side-along both in real time (I was running two groups a week) and game time. Each was in a series of adventures that would, if followed up on, eventually take them to the same ruined city but on completely different missions and for completely different reasons; and there was a possibility they would meet. Even without that, the actions of whichever one got there first would likely affect the other based on a) what they had stirred up, and b) what they had done or left behind.

As it turned out, had the two parties been there simultaneously one would probably have been wiped out by the actions of the other: the mission goal of one was in part to explore a hill with an Acropolis on top of it, or so they thought; but when they got there the Acropolis and the top of the hill was gone, sheared off by the other party a month earlier in their blundering attempts to control a "flying castle" (actually a huge extraterrestrial vessel with half a hill hanging off of it!) they had got going. Fortunately what the other party sought was never in the Acropolis to begin with...

Again, I would gate that on what is interesting, not some mechanistic idea of time and space. I mean, its a non-technological world, missing someone by an hour is as good as a year in most cases. Its not like you create some irredeemable cloud of unreality.

Missing someone by an hour is as good as a year, yes; but I want to know if they missed by an hour or hit by an hour. Even more relevant when the various parties have a common base of operations and have means of fast travel meaning people can potentially pop in at any time - I want to know who's "home" when.

Fine, but not really an advert FOR world building

Still better than no world-building.

Exactly my point.

If a game world is to be presented "neutrally" then ideally it is designed without reference to any players at all...particularly if you either don't even know who your players will be yet (my usual situation) or are designing something to be used by multiple groups who may or may not be your own (i.e. this is something you're thinking of publishing).

And ideally the world should be neutral. By that I mean that Mt. Torgrath will still loom over the city's east flank regardless of who plays in the game; Borten the Barkeep will still be a surly old grouch whether the PCs are all Thieves or all Wizards or all Elves or whatever; Queen Terriann will still be in her 6th year on the throne having succeeded King Gorund on his death due to old age, no matter what night of the week the sessions get played; and no matter who or what you or your PC are if you send said PC into the Docklands alleys without a few levels under its belt it's very likely going to lose its belt pouch...and possibly its life.

Well, I don't ever do THAT! I have them generate some character backstory at the start, and then engage that material with the first scene, and build on that for the 2nd scene, etc.

Where I don't worry much about PC backstory until it's clear said PCs will stick around a while...which at low levels is by no means assured....and by the time that's happened oftentimes quite a bit of backstory has come out organically through run-of-play stuff.

I honestly don't know what that means

It means the game world has some consistency and - for lack of a better word - "solidity" to it, somewhat like reality; rather than feeling like something from a dream that morphs itself to suit whatever the dream might be.

Lanefan

 

[TheSword]

First Rule of Dungeoncraft: Never force yourself to create more than you must.

Write this rule on the inside cover of your Dungeon Master Guide. Failure to obey the First Rule has been the downfall of too many campaigns. You shouldn't feel compelled to create more information or detail than you'll need to conduct the next couple of game sessions. When some DMs sit down to create a new campaign, they are strongly tempted to draw dozens of maps, create hundreds of NPCs, and write histories of the campaign world stretching back thousands of years. While having this sort of information at your disposal can't hurt, it probably won't help-not for a long time yet. Spending lots of time on extraneous details now only slows you down, perhaps to the point where you lose interest in the game before it starts. For now, the goal is to figure out exactly what information you'll need to conduct your first few game sessions. You can fill in the holes later, as it becomes necessary. This approach not only gets you up and playing as quickly as possible but also keeps your options open and allows you to tailor the campaign around the input of the players and the outcome of their adventures.
—- Ray Winneger. Dragon Magazine 256

It looks like pretty good advice to me. Taken from the original Ray Winneger’s world building series that ran for over two years in Dragon Magazine back in the 90’s. Articles are all available online.