Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[AbdulAlhazred]

Did you see my posts in the other worldbuilding thread about the Dream Game campaign? That was a game where the main drive (I think for all the players, certainly myself and Mark) was finding out what was really going on, or at least learning more. In one of the group discussions near the end of the campaign another of the players, Jamie, talks about how far we still have to go in terms of discovery (and it also gives a good overview of the campaign):

We've got to face up to the fact that we're still floundering in a major way. We just don't have a clue what 'their' objectives are, how they are pursuing those objectives. We don't even know who exactly most of 'them' are. We used to help patients with dream related problems. We used to intrude, find the malignant External, find its Achiles heel and defeat it. Then we'd see a subsequent improvement in the patient's health. The nightmares went away and the patient seemed to find a peace of mind. But with the Fallen it's different. We haven't clearly identified the problems being suffered, never mind the entities causing these problems. And as for why they are doing so or what their Achilles heel might be, we haven't a clue.​

It was a game that featured an unusually wide range of elements - the real mundane world of Glasgow in the mid 90s, 'real' occult and paranormal inspired happenings, dream weirdness, superhero-esque action scenes in dreams with lots of bizarre powers flying about, horror scenes (usually in dreams), and group discussions about What's Really Going On. The players would even write essays about What's Really Going On and these are included in the campaign logs.

I don't think this was because we were all lore-seeking players, I think it's because of the sort of game it was and that produced certain behaviour on our part. The GM did ridiculously huge amounts of research and prep for it, which led to all the players taking it very seriously. It was a game that felt real, and also one where there were major obstacles to the unveiling of occult knowledge: the strange, unknowable nature of dreams; the fact that the spirit world (if it existed at all) was beyond our perception; the extreme secrecy of both our antagonists and the 'good guy' organisation we encountered.

Right, and I think the sheer unusualness of this campaign, as in there may not be another analogous to it which has ever existed (though again I would obviously not assume that is perfectly true) is my point. In 42 years of RPGing I have yet to encounter those who play in this way. Now, I HAVE encountered some VERY elaborate campaigns. I played in several that a particular GM created which featured upwards of 100's of distinct NPCs, vast mysteries which were never fully resolved, etc. Even in THAT game though most of those elements were, in some sense, 'color'. We all knew there was a big mystery at the heart of the campaign. Some characters knew more than others about it, but generally you went on 'doing your thing' and it only factored heavily in the immediate action 2-3 times in 20 years of play. I would still call that campaign (or super-campaign, it wasn't continuous) the closest to what you describe.

I would say that what the GM in the 'Dream Game' was focused on was a very specific genre and milieu. I mean, it doesn't seem as though it was necessarily detail in terms of specific events, but more in terms of a great depth of knowledge of the sort of 'modern paranormal mystery' genre. Including in this were probably things like modern theories of magic and occult terminology and theories, various conspiracy theory lore, etc. I'm sure a great deal of research can be done on these things! I'm sure it was used effectively to create a feeling of near-believability. I'd also note how specialized the game's procedures are, playing yourself as a PC (which must logically then include provisions to avoid PC death, I mean it isn't like you can roll up a new you) etc.

I think it is probably the exception that fairly proves the rule, and again you say that the players were NOT specifically TRYING to 'explore'. My assertion being that few players are really after digging up facts about the setting JUST FOR ITSELF, but will do so as part of some other goal.

 

[pemerton]

The discussions in this thread aren't primarily semantic. They are about real differences of approach to RPGing.

As far as I know, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has played a wide variety of RPGs, including "indie" ones like DitV and DW. Judging from his posts (in this thread, but also over the years in other threads) he is also fairly happy with a rather GM-driven game, where the GM establishes "objective" obstacles and the players come up with ideas for resolving or circumventing them. But he doesn't like a lot of exposition or epxloration for the sake of it.

To me, that seems like a coherent set of tastes.

My tastes are I think) narrower. I don't really care for GM-driven play even of the "overcome obstacles" variety.

It seems that some other posters in this thread enjoy the sort of exposition and exploration that Hussar does not. That's a long way from my tastes, but it's in the nature of tastes to vary!

From my point of view, the issues of contention in this thread are not claims about what is desirable (although that's how the thread title frames it), but what is possible. Eg is it possible to have meaningful RPGing without worldbuilding? What would that look like? If a game does have heavy worldbuilding, what effect will that have on play? (Eg I'm suggesting it means a fair bit of exposition as part of play.)

I think those are interesting questions to discuss.

 

[Hussar]

And, on hearing it, I equate out to worldbuilding.

And, fair enough. If you equate the two, then of course world building is fine.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
So your argument is that everything in the entire world should be available at any city the PCs are in just in case they go look for it?

Well, considering your game world as agreed upon at the outset of the campaign was to revolve around that single city, then, yup. Why not? Why create an entirely new city just so they can go look for something? Why not spend that time creating the adventure in the city they are already invested in?

IOW, to me, you just did a bunch of work - designing a city - for the sole purpose of allowing the players to find what they were looking for. Since the players actually ARE going to find what they are looking for, it seems like a lot of work for no real payoff.

 

[Imaculata]

The way I tend to do world building for my campaigns, is to write out the basics of every important location in my campaign. So I'll write a short piece of text for every country, island and city. Just a basic description. Then I'll flesh out some of the cultures, and the religions.

But when it comes to the finer details, such as maps, adventure hooks, quests... those I tend to write out just before the session when they are expected to arrive at that location. This allows me to change these locations if I happen to have better ideas later on. Plus I have a better idea which quests fit into the story, if I write them based on what is going on right now in the campaign.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, considering your game world as agreed upon at the outset of the campaign was to revolve around that single city, then, yup. Why not?

Because it would be absurd. Neither I, nor my players want to play in a city that belongs more in Monty Python than our D&D game.

Why create an entirely new city just so they can go look for something?

I didn't.

Why not spend that time creating the adventure in the city they are already invested in?

It wasn't necessary.

IOW, to me, you just did a bunch of work - designing a city - for the sole purpose of allowing the players to find what they were looking for.

Because you like to assume incorrect things about the games of others.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I would say that what the GM in the 'Dream Game' was focused on was a very specific genre and milieu.

I think you're right. Like the X-Files, it reflected a high level of interest in the paranormal at that time. It could be seen as an investigative horror game in the same category as Call of Cthulhu, with the main structure being a curiosity driven push from the mundane world into the world of the strange, and then a retreat from that world when it becomes too dangerous and frightening. In the case of the latter, it was maybe more like a Lovecraft story than the Call of Cthulhu rpg.

My assertion being that few players are really after digging up facts about the setting JUST FOR ITSELF, but will do so as part of some other goal.

That was the case in the Dream Game campaign too to some extent. Our drive to learn more was prompted by the fact that our efforts to help our patients were failing and from the second half of the campaign onwards we were coming under greater and greater threat in the real world - a friend was kidnapped, and there was an arson attack on the Sleep and Dream Research Laboratory where we conducted dream intrusions. But right from the first session of the DGC we were confronted by inexplicable mysteries and I think our main impetus was always to try to unravel them. In fact even before the DGC started, when we played the game in the form of single adventures, we'd always be trying to understand how the External was affecting the patient in the dream world. While there were many similarities between dreams in the DG and dungeons in D&D, dreams were always more mysterious because the in-dream logic would to some degree hide what the External was doing

 

[hawkeyefan]

From my point of view, the issues of contention in this thread are not claims about what is desirable (although that's how the thread title frames it), but what is possible. Eg is it possible to have meaningful RPGing without worldbuilding? What would that look like? If a game does have heavy worldbuilding, what effect will that have on play? (Eg I'm suggesting it means a fair bit of exposition as part of play.)

I think those are interesting questions to discuss.

Well, that's interesting because I recently picked up City of Mists. It's a new game that's partially based on the Powered by the Apocalypse system. It's very character driven.

What's interesting to me, reading this book while also taking part in these worldbuilding threads, is that the game is designed with the expectation that the entire first session, called the Exposition Session interestingly enough, is to be spent constructing the player characters, establishing their relationships to one another as part of a Crew, and then establishing the aspects of the City itself.

So the first session is where everyone sits down and talks about the characters, the setting they inhabit, and how those two elements interact with one another, which is loosely the story of the game. This is what I would call Worldbuilding. The fact that it's done mutually by the GM and players doesn't change what it is.

What other term would any of you use to describe such a session?

Once these things are established, the GM then goes about setting up scenarios and details based around the goals established by the players for their characters and their Crew. So in this sense, the GM does not have any preconceived ideas prior to the Exposition Session, but thereafter is free to introduce any elements he likes, as long as they fit in with the ideas and goals established.

This, to me, seems to be a pretty good example of a middle ground. In this case, everyone is involved in establishing the game world.

Now, I think it's interesting that the game is designed this way. I think it's a good idea that can easily be ported to other games. The game mechanics aren't even heavily involved in this process, other then a couple of bits about how crew members relate to one another. So it's pretty system agnostic.

It's also very similar to what I've been doing whenever I've DMed for D&D over the past 20 years or so.

 

[Doug McCrae]

An exchange from late on in the Dream Game campaign where Jamie really emphasises the importance of investigation.

Jamie: I think we have been acting rashly, without knowing what was going on. Before these present difficulties, we used to analyse the situation, work it out and then act. But that's not the way we have proceeded of late. So much has happened so fast that we have been forced to respond without waiting until we had a satisfactory understanding of the situation. From now on it should be - investigation, investigation, investigation. Once we know what's going on, then we decide if and how we can act.

Doug: Should we be continuing dream intrusion as part of that investigation, or is that action?

Brian: No!

Jamie: Perhaps if used carefully and for investigation rather than active interference.

Pix: I think it has been getting less useful recently. We've been doing so much of it that, frankly, the information pouring out is becoming contradictory and forever more inconclusive. That situation might be because we're not absorbing it intelligently, or because we're taking on too much all at once, and because we're no longer following our old experimental procedures (in terms of background analysis, briefing and de-briefing).

Brian: Let's not dream intrude for a long while. Perhaps even six months. Let's perform a different sort of investigation - looking at McDowell and such like. As far as I can tell, magic s you up. Dream intruding s you up. Even if we continued investigation through dreams I don't think we could honestly say that the conclusions we are coming to are rational, reasonable or scientific or just our progressively confusing subjective perceptions of our ongoing insanity. Why not cease the slide into confusion, and start in another direction - like learning the vocabulary of the world that McDowell thinks he's in?​

Just like D&D, if the party decided they could no longer enter dungeons because it was driving them insane.

 

[Lanefan]

The words we use matter. They shape the ways we think about things and the sort of techniques we use. By insisting that we use the orthodox framing of world building and referring to a game world rather than a setting ...

For just about any purpose I can think of, "game world" and "setting" (or "game setting") mean the same thing. The terms are interchangeable; with the possible exception that one might tend to use "game world" more to describe the backdrop of a fantasy-style game that mostly takes place on a single world, and "setting" for the backdrop of a space-style game that covers multiple worlds.

... or a shared fiction in order to participate in this discussion you are insisting that we take a number of assumptions for granted that I for one do not wish to take for granted. Mainly it suggests a permanence and independent existence of the setting and implies that it has intrinsic value outside of the context of the game.

Er...well...it does. It has value in that it can be used for other games beyond just the one currently being played in it; and if published (or in rare cases, even if not) it can be used/reused by multiple DMs.

If it has an outside existence beyond this shared activity then it must exist somewhere - inside the head of the GM. So then he or she must own it - not a shared thing at all.

As far as I'm concerned this is not in question, nor does it have any reason to be controversial. The designer of the setting owns the setting, just like the creator of any other IP owns that IP, until and unless that ownership is somehow transferred to someone else.

The shared activity is the play that takes place within the setting, not the creation of said setting; unless the setting's original creator gives permission for others to share in/help with the creative process.

It also removes meaningful distinctions between setting design, scenario design, and adventure design. In games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark I view it as the GM's duty to mostly focus on scenario design - creating a compelling situation that prompts players to make decisions for their characters and address it on their own terms. I contrast this with adventure design which is mostly focused on solving or beating the adventure laid out before them.

The only meaningful distinction between these three is scale: in ascending order it'd go scenario-adventure-setting. Scenario is also somewhat distinct from the other two as a lot of scenario will be done in the here-and-now during play in reaction to where the PCs go, and how, and what they do there; while adventure and setting design can be done ahead of time.

There's a reason why I prefer to refer to a shared fiction over a game world. A shared fiction implies a play space that we give form to as we play in it and define as we need it. It has no independent existence. It only exists in the moments we are together. It serves play. Not the other way around. We follow it and play in it because it has value here and now.

A theatre stage serves the actors upon it, but remains in place once the show's over and everyone's gone home for the night. A game world or setting is the "stage" on which the "actors" (the inhabitants of said setting, including the PCs) perform, and it serves said actors by its very presence.

Lan-"the show must go on"-efan