Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Hussar]

Just a point about X1 Isle of Dread.

One of the major elements of X1 is actually traveling to the island. That's a big part of the adventure. So, of course, you're going to need to detail out getting to the island, which means you need some sort of map (whether it's an actual map or just a timeline of events) in order to get from A to B. That's just basic setting building.

But, in Tomb of Horrors, for example, the adventure STARTS at the three caves. There's no details about the surrounding area because that's not part of the adventure. Why am I pissing about with getting there? That's precisely my point about world building being unnecessary. The adventure isn't getting to the Tomb of Horrors, it's going INTO the Tomb of Horrors. So, all the stuff outside the Tomb is largely irrelevant and unnecessary.

It's "Tour Des Realms" gaming. We're showing off the wonderful scenery of the game world because... well... why? The Tomb is where the adventure is. Spending time designing the area around the tomb and then spending time traveling to the Tomb is just a waste of everyone's time. HERE is the adventure. That stuff over there is pretty much unimportant at least in the context of the adventure.

Why are you wasting your and your player's time poncing about getting to the Tomb? Get INTO the adventure. Why wait? What's gained by having a couple of random encounters and a description of mountains? Skip the boring stuff and get on with the show.

 

[Maxperson]

I'll repeat what I said:

If I place hobgoblins in my AD&D game, and I also place some elves (or a player brings along a PC elf), then the MM tells us that the hobgoblins hate the elves.

But the mere presence of hobgoblins in the game does not imply that any elves are part of the game. And I don't have to ignore any lore to produce that result. I just have to not introduce any elves into play!

It doesn't matter if you introduce elves or not. The hobgoblin write-up says that they hate elves, which implies that elves exist in your game whether or not you introduce them. You have to remove that lore about elves to remove that implication.

 

[Maxperson]

For those who think that lore is worldbuilding:

The AD&D MM describes giant rats as coming from Sumatra, rakshasa as coming from India, ogre magi as coming from Japan, and (in Latin) gold dragons as coming from China. Does that mean that Asia (the actualy Asia of earth where all these places are found) is, by default, part of all AD&D worlds? I've never encountered anyone who thinks so.

Why not? A D&D Earth has been one of the prime worlds for a long time.

 

[Maxperson]

I'll try again:

First, if the Phantom of the Opera was an RPG then it woudln't have a script! Rather, the "script" would be the transcript of an episode of RPGing.

Second, if a transcript of an episode of RPGing gave us something resembling The Phantom of the Opera, we would have an intance of an episode of RPGing that required, as setting, an opera house and a subterranean lair.

Three, it is possible for a transcript of an episode of RPGing to give us something like that.

I've never seen a game or adventure that takes place within a single building without there also being at least some of the outside world known.

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

Okay. That' really proves nothing as all of those also exist within the game world at large and that larger game world has information about it that exists outside of the building. The Phantom "RPG" being described has no such world at large.

I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting at the moment.

Because it doesn't matter, I'll toss in Tegal Manor, one of my all time favorites. It also has a world outside of it that can be talked about.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The first doesn't apply anywhere near universally. For some it's quick and easy to throw together an adventure. For others they don't need to prep it all and can wing adventures all day long and twice on Sunday. Others need that time.

The second and third aren't even about worldbuilding. They both about bad DMs, and bad DMs will be bad regardless of the amount of worldbuilding involved in the game.

The last one is about bad players. If a player is trying to play a race that he knows isn't in the game, he's playing in bad faith. You shouldn't agree to play in a game with pre-approved races and then ask for a race that isn't on the list.

• 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.

The first isn't true for a great many of us. We use that material in our games.

The second is just plain false. I've never had an issue with altering anything I want in pre-built worlds with a lot of worldbuilding. You just change it and move on.

The third is also just a bad DM red flag.

You haven't presented anything that is bad for the game, except for maybe the first one for the DM/table, and then only if you lack the ability to create adventures without taking forever to iron out the details.

 

[pemerton]

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?

But starting Isle of Dread with "You're sailing from X to Y and then a storm blows up, and beaches you on this lonely island . . ." isn't worldbuilding. (Hussar's post indicates that this isn't the canonical way of starting X1. But it is a possible way, which is enough for my point.)

Which is [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point. The Phantom of the Opera happens in Paris, but we don't actually need to build Paris; we just allude to it. The GM can narrate that the PCs are sailing from X to Y without anyone actually having to build X or Y. They are just names in a bit of introductory framing.

all of those also exist within the game world at large and that larger game world has information about it that exists outside of the building.

What's the larger game world for B1? Moldvay Basic stipulates dungeon-only adventuring. The journey to and from the dungeon happens in imagination, but is not played at the table.

Here's the "game world at large" for B1 (it's p 6 of my PDF version):

area, Rogahn the Fearless (a fighter of renown) and Zelligar the Unknown (a magic-user of mystery and power) pooled their resources and expertise to construct a home and stronghold for the two of them to use as a base of operations. The location of this hidden complex was chosen with care, since both men disliked visitors and intruders. Far from the nearest settlement, away from traveled routes, and high upon a craggy hill, the new construction took shape. Carved out of the rock protrusion which crested the heavily forested hill, this mystical hideaway was well hidden, and its rumored existence was never common knowledge. Even less well known was its name, the Caverns of Quasqueton.​

The fact that there is a largely unknown (in terms of existence and name) stronghold constructed in an isolated, craggy, heavily-forested hill, is not worldbuilding. That's the barest of flavour. The only actual bit of the world that's been "built" for this adventure is the caverns.

It doesn't matter if you introduce elves or not. The hobgoblin write-up says that they hate elves, which implies that elves exist in your game whether or not you introduce them. You have to remove that lore about elves to remove that implication.

No I don't! Proof positive - I've used hobgoblins in a game with no elves! (An old AD&D OA campaign.)

That's my whole point: choosing to use hobgoblins from the MM isn't making a commitment to also have elves in the game. It implies nothing, except that if elves turn up, then the hobgoblins will be angry at them.

 

[Aldarc]

This isn't a political negotiation. It is a discussion about world building. 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.

Then this is absolutely hypocritical to expect others to do the same about their own beliefs, because the reality is that people clearly have different "basic facts about what they believe world building means." I hardly think that "some of the definitions being proposed" veer any, if at all, from "how it generally means in the hobby," and it may be your own preconceptions and biases in place that prevent you from seeing that rather than any failures, shortcomings, or radicalism of the "proposed definitions" themselves.

What should I concede exactly? If he were to claim that that an apple was an orange, and then later concede that it was in fact an apple, why would I be expected to concede that it's not an apple?

Cut it out with the false equivalence, Max. We are discussing of abstract ideas and not the classification of fruits.

You and @Hussar have convinced me. The next time I get pulled over for speeding, I'm going to tell the cop that I don't define/characterize going above the speed limit as speeding or unsafe driving and let him know that I expect him to conform to my new definition. Then I'll point him to these threads so he can see the truth of my words.

"New definition" implies the establishment of an "old definition," yet the argument transpiring is about establishing what that "old definition" entails. You referring to your opponents' definition as a "new definition" is a pretty sleezy rhetorical way to position your own idiomatic definition as the "old definition" when you have not made a convincing case for that at all yet.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's "Tour Des Realms" gaming. We're showing off the wonderful scenery of the game world because... well... why? The Tomb is where the adventure is. Spending time designing the area around the tomb and then spending time traveling to the Tomb is just a waste of everyone's time. HERE is the adventure. That stuff over there is pretty much unimportant at least in the context of the adventure.

.

Again, it comes down to playsstyle and preference. If you want to start adventures at the tomb because you feel that is where adventure is: I say go for it. That is a very efficient style of play, and I am sure it is going to work for plenty of groups. But I've gamed with too many players who can't stand that kind of approach, and who want the ability to say "well what happens if I go over here", that I think you need a tool like world building as one answer to that issue. It isn't a matter of going to the hills and having an encounter or two. In most cases, what it is about the ability to move freely through the world, in a way that isn't unlike our freedom in the real world. And that trip to the hills can become an adventure. Even random encounters can lead to something in that respect. The GMs job isn't to bore the players. The GM is still expected to keep the game alive (and if sufficient world building has gone on at those hills, there is more opportunity for adventure there should the players leave the tomb.

Why are you wasting your and your player's time poncing about getting to the Tomb? Get INTO the adventure. Why wait? What's gained by having a couple of random encounters and a description of mountains? Skip the boring stuff and get on with the show

The approach you describe is one I've taken myself at times. It is totally fine. I occasionally run 'monster of the week' style adventures when I don't want to do Sandbox, and those are pretty much "this is where the adventure is this week" type campaigns. But just because that can work, that doesn't mean world building is bad (and I would say, I still do plenty of what I would regard in world building in those scenarios). It is all in what you want to do. I think the mistake here would be to say "hey this works for me" or "this works in this instance" so it should be standard advice. I believe in helping people find the tools that will fit their style and their group (and I feel the same way about RPG systems). What you are describing is a fine tool or approach, and for certain people or circumstances, I might recommend it. But I would also recommend a world building heavy approach for other groups.

The reason people react so strongly to "world building is bad" is it is the advice that is only going to work for certain GMs and certain conditions. Too many people see value from world building at the table to just go along with that kind of conclusion. And this is being expressed as an absolute, objective, Hussar has the answer for everyone.

 

[Maxperson]

What's the larger game world for B1? Moldvay Basic stipulates dungeon-only adventuring. The journey to and from the dungeon happens in imagination, but is not played at the table.

Here's the "game world at large" for B1 (it's p 6 of my PDF version):

area, Rogahn the Fearless (a fighter of renown) and Zelligar the Unknown (a magic-user of mystery and power) pooled their resources and expertise to construct a home and stronghold for the two of them to use as a base of operations. The location of this hidden complex was chosen with care, since both men disliked visitors and intruders. Far from the nearest settlement, away from traveled routes, and high upon a craggy hill, the new construction took shape. Carved out of the rock protrusion which crested the heavily forested hill, this mystical hideaway was well hidden, and its rumored existence was never common knowledge. Even less well known was its name, the Caverns of Quasqueton.​

The fact that there is a largely unknown (in terms of existence and name) stronghold constructed in an isolated, craggy, heavily-forested hill, is not worldbuilding. That's the barest of flavour. The only actual bit of the world that's been "built" for this adventure is the caverns.

And yet you don't just *poof* and arrive there. You travel there from somewhere. Probably that distant town.

As for Moldvay Basic, not only does it not stipulate dungeon only adventuring, it explicitly mentions other types of adventures. From page B3...

"It is the DM's job to prepare the setting for each adventure before the game begins. This setting is called a dungeon since most adventures take place in underground caverns or stone rooms beneath old ruins or castles."

Most adventures, not all adventures. If most take place underground or inside and are called dungeons, then some don't and take place in the countryside or in towns and cities.

No I don't! Proof positive - I've used hobgoblins in a game with no elves! (An old AD&D OA campaign.)

Then the elves were implied. Implied doesn't mean anything other than that by the way. Just because elves are implied, doesn't mean that they exist, so the lack of elves in your OA campaign doesn't remove the implication if you leave elves in the lore. To remove the implication, you have to take out the lore pertaining to elves.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Writing an adventure takes a finite amount of time. If you don't have enough time to finish an adventure then yes worldbuilding along with... updating the campaign blog, testing the VTT equipment, studying up on rules, reading inspirational work, watching tv, creating artwork for your campaign, and so on are all things that take time and said time would probably be better put to use making an adventure. Does that mean all of the things I listed are bad? Or maybe we shouldn't assume that the GM/DM is willfully neglecting his adventure since if that's really what he wants to do there are a ton of things he could do beside adventure creation, some related to the game and others not so much.

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.

IMO this is a weak argument... First because even you admit it's only a subset of GM's who use worldbuilding and also succumb to this. It's also a weak argument because it's pointing out that using a tool the wrong way is bad not that the tool itself is bad. Some people use knives to unscrew a screw... does that mean knives are bad tools or that this particular application of the knife is bad?

[*]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.

Eh, some people like exploration campaigns, some people actually enjoy discovering and exploring the GM's creation. If they are having fun why is that a bad thing, and who are you to claim it as such? If anything I would say when this is an issue it's a mismatch of player and GM desires and expectations. You don't like discovery/exploration campaigns, cool... but worldbuilding is necessary for such campaigns So IMO the answer isn't worlduilding is bad... it's [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] isn't a good fit for a GM/group that enjoys such things.

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.

I don't see this as a problem anymore than theme or genre constraints would be a problem. If the player bought into the campaign concept this shouldn't be an issue. If they haven't well that's a communication issue. If I'm running a game in Middle Earth and you agreed to play in a Middle Earth campaign there shouldn't be an issue if I'm not allowing you to play a tieflinf, irregardless of how cool you make it sound or how badly you want it. We'll play D&D eventually but until then you should try to abide by the social contract implied when agreeing to play in a particular world.

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.

One man's "garbage" is another man's "treasure". Oh, and let me guess it would be you that decided exactly what everyone can or can't directly use in their particular games... Ah...no thanks, I can do that for myself.

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.

Haven't experienced this at all. It's pretty easy to declare what is or isn't part of one's game... either by book (only the core camapign book is canon for this game), by level of granularity (This is a high level Greyhawk campaign with differeing details at the micro level or we're only using geography and place names), or even by timeline (This is a Pre-Faction War Campaign). Nothing inherent in worldbuilding forces a GM to use everything published for it and excluding things isn't hard at all if you have a particular vision for your camapign... I would argue it's no harder than making everything up from scratch ahead of the game or trying to improvise everything as it comes up.

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.

This argument makes no sense to me... I can't have the official changes to a particular world I want so there shouldn't be any worldbuilding. It's akin to the kid who wants to kick the sandcastle over because the kids who are having fun didn't build it exactly the way he wanted it... even though there's plenty of room in the sandbox for him to build his own customized castle. Also "value" is so subjective as to be almost meaningless in this context. What one person considers a great change others will hate and there's no way to judge whose particular likes have more value than other's likes.