Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Lanefan]

See that is the kind of information that, unless it’s somehow essential to the game...perhaps there’s a question of royal succession or something like that...I don’t think really needs a lot of work beforehand. For me, if a player asked a question like that, I can improv an answer that would be just as useful and meaningful as if I’d mapped out 8 generations of royal lineage beforehand. My prep time would be better spent on some other aspect of the game.

However once you've improv'ed that answer you're stuck with it, and have to do the work now of writing it down that you could have done earlier.

Me, I'd rather do the work beforehand and get it out of the way, even if I risk doing some work I end up not needing to have done.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

But for all of those - possibly except Haunted Keep which I've never seen - you still have to get to that single building somehow.

With C2 there has to be an outdoors of some sort as there are, if memory serves, 4 different entrances from the surface to the dungeon; meaning that even if you teleport the PCs into the place they're still going to go outside at some point (as they need to go through all four bits to trigger the final bit) and will probably ask about their surroundings.

S1 has three entrances from the surface, so the same applies here as to C2 except there's a 1-in-3 chance the party hit the right entrance on the first try.

G1 is also on the surface; I believe there's reference to lookouts etc. which means the module writers are expecting the PCs to approach from the surrounding area...meaning you need to give them a surrounding area from which to approach.

Lanefan

 

[hawkeyefan]

However once you've improv'ed that answer you're stuck with it, and have to do the work now of writing it down that you could have done earlier.

Me, I'd rather do the work beforehand and get it out of the way, even if I risk doing some work I end up not needing to have done.

Well you’re assuming I write it down at all!

If it’ important enough, someone will remember it. If not....well then problem solved.

 

[pemerton]

But for all of those - possibly except Haunted Keep which I've never seen - you still have to get to that single building somehow.

I'm reporting the adventures as they're actually published, not as someone might choose to run them.

Eg in C1 the approach to the building is all done by GM narration - the adventre starts with the PCs having stumbled into the Hidden Shrine. A group might choose to run it differently, but there is no requirement to do so.

 

[Lanefan]

Well you’re assuming I write it down at all!

Yes, I am. It's not the players' job to record your world for you.

If it’ important enough, someone will remember it. If not....well then problem solved.

And if it's important enough but not written down, three people will each remember it differently and the DM might not remember it at all; and that never ends well.

Lanefan

 

[Imaro]

Well, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] thinks it bogs down published material in unnecessary stuff that doesn't contribute to play.

Doesn't contribute to play for who? If he's only speaking for himself.. Cool, I have no reason to doubt his claim but if he's claiming to speak for others then yes I disagree.

Neither [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] or anyone else can claim to have knowledge of what others use at their table, so unless he's the sole audience for said material its going to be nigh impossible to prove his assertion applies to those in the hobby as a whole.

Look, anyone is free to use or discard material as they see fit in their games so the only way it will undermine his goals is if he tries to use material he has no use for... which makes no sense.

I think (and he may agree - I can't remember all the posts) that it pushes towards an approach to play which emphasises pre-authored fiction as a focus of play, rather than something more spontaneous and mutual between those at the table.

I'm sure you disagree with these thoughts. But that's the nature of these sorts of discussions!

What in the published material forces someone who wants to run such a game to use it? Better yet why would someone who doesn't want to use pre-authored fiction in their game buy and utilize pre-authored material? That's not the material undermining your playstyle that's you choosing the wrong tool for the job.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm reporting the adventures as they're actually published, not as someone might choose to run them.

Eg in C1 the approach to the building is all done by GM narration - the adventre starts with the PCs having stumbled into the Hidden Shrine. A group might choose to run it differently, but there is no requirement to do so.

I'll have to take your word for this for now, as I've neither played through nor DMed C1 and though I own it it's many years since I read it.

Yet even then, that "GM narration" has to consist of something. And if the module assumes the PCs "stumble into" the Hidden Shrine, that presupposes a further (unwritten) assumption that the PCs are doing something else that brings them there in the first place such that they can do said stumbling-into....hm?

 

[Imaro]

Well you’re assuming I write it down at all!

If it’ important enough, someone will remember it. If not....well then problem solved.

Yeah my experiences with this type of situation have been more in line with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]. IME.. all it does is look bad when something like this is only vaguely remembered by the PC's or remembered differently by various players and they look to the DM to settle the matter and realize he/she cant because it was made up on the fly and not written down.

 

[Hussar]

This isn't a political negotiation. It is a discussion about world building. People are not going to concede basic facts about what they believe world building means, especially with some of the definitions being proposed. No one is digging in their heels. They just know what they like, what works, and what they consider world building to be when they prep their games. No amount of linguistic wrestling is going to change that sort of thing.

And yet, I'm expected in this thread to ignore the accepted definition of world building and use the one presented by [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] which is far, far broader than what is typically defined as world building.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, perhaps a point form list of how I think that world building is bad might be a good idea.

I. How Worldbuilding is Bad for the DM/Table

• Worldbuilding takes away from time that could be spent writing the actual adventure. The more time the DM spends detailing Elven Tea Ceremonies, the less time he or she has to write an actual adventure.
• Some DM's become very, very attached to their creations. To the point where any attempt by the players to change that creation will be met with very stiff resistance.
• The possibility of the "Tour Des Realms" campaign where the PC's are basically just tourists in the game and are expected to make the appropriate oohing and ahhhing noises at the DM's wonderful creation.
• The narrowing of possibilities in the game. The DM is a heavy world builder but the player doesn't want to play one of the pre-approved races. She wants to play something else. The DM nixes the idea, not because the idea is necessarily bad or powergaming or anything like that, but, because it doesn't fit with the DM's preconceptions of the campaign. This could also apply to any number of player concepts.

II How Worldbuilding is Bad in Published Works

• It's needless padding. Instead of getting material that can be directly used in the game, game books become things to be read.
• It's intrusive. As more and more world building accumulates, any attempt to use the material other than specifically as written becomes more and more difficult. DM's have to spend more and more time slicing away the stuff they don't want to use in order to get that that nugget that is actually useful at the table.
• Dogamtism. As world building material accretes, those that dive deep into that material become more and more resentful of any attempt to change that material to the point where changes become virtually impossible to implement, regardless of the actual value of the new idea.