Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Bedrockgames]

What would you take out?

I'd have to see it again, but plot and adventure.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd have to see it again, but plot and adventure.

For me the criteria is, "Is it building up the game world?" For instance, an adventure plot to have the lord assassinated during a feast for the PCs would not be worldbuilding, but the creation of a dungeon as part of adventure building would be worldbuilding. I'm adding a dungeon t the world, building it up.

 

[Imaro]

I'd posit that the reason that people react so strongly to "world building is bad" is that they likely fall pretty heavily somewhere on the list I gave a few pages back and they can't handle the idea that their DMing isn't the perfect approach to gaming.

*shrug* I'll do you one better and posit you'd probably be wrong...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

With the thread this long... I am sure someone has mentioned the thought I have done world building to give players a contextual starting point for character building as inspiration and guidance, and their motivations are strongly plot drivers.

Welcome to the pits of heck! I don't know really, the thread was necro'd and I didn't really read it, lol. At this point it has simply become a second copy of the 'What is World Building For?' thread... Frankly I think I tire of the whole discussion.

 

[Sunseeker]

Welcome to the pits of heck! I don't know really, the thread was necro'd and I didn't really read it, lol. At this point it has simply become a second copy of the 'What is World Building For?' thread... Frankly I think I tire of the whole discussion.

And the Game Mechanics & Player Agency thread too. I think there's another one starting up in the Pathfinder sub-forum too.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, this was fun, but, now it's time to let this one die.

I've made my points, you can agree or disagree as you like.

To me, world building and world builders have taken over the hobby to the degree that it has driven me largely out of it. I almost never buy any products anymore because most of the products are geared almost entirely for world builders. I'm quite happy in our group because our group gets it - get to the point and quit faffing about.

When this thread started, some ten years or more ago, I was in a very different group and was so burned out by all the world building stuff. I'm still burned out on it today. I haven't picked up a fantasy novel in years for exactly this reason. And, well, it does help me to choose DM's to be honest. If the DM's description of his game world starts with something like "Thousands of years ago..." I'm taking a hard pass.

 

[Maxperson]

To me, world building and world builders have taken over the hobby to the degree that it has driven me largely out of it. I almost never buy any products anymore because most of the products are geared almost entirely for world builders. I'm quite happy in our group because our group gets it - get to the point and quit faffing about.

My bad for not "getting" the One True Way. Sorry.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with you that you can ignore bits of what is written. However, ignoring bits of what is written and what @Hawkeyfan wrote "Taken as written, the inclusion of hobgoblins implies the inclusion of elves." are mutually exclusive positions. You cannot both "take what is written" and "ignore the bits about elves." One includes all of what is written and the other doesn't.

Right, so both of them are reasonable positions. I don't quite understand what ANYONE here is disagreeing about. These sorts of 'arguments' are silly. 'Hobgoblins as written' imply elves, but you don't have to use them 'as written', you can use PART of what was written, and delete the elves part! I mean, I do this all the time. I am pretty sure MOST GMs do this all the time. I'd be pretty surprised if anyone who's GMed enough to bother to post in this thread has NOT done both of these things at one time or another, taken some lore complete with all that it implies, from some book, and also taken some other lore and lifted some subset of it out. What is even interesting about this? (not that I'm especially asking YOU this Max, I'm pretty sure we agree on this one). I mean, I guess its a rhetorical question. Maybe the whole thread is losing me. I'm feeling like between this thread and the other one, maybe I'm become another [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]....

 

[pemerton]

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

It's Moldvay Basic. The game starts at the dungeon entrance. If the group wanted to, I guess they could describe the trip from the town if they wanted. But they don't have to. And even if they do, it's just free narration.

From B3, a paragraph or two below the quote you posted:

An adventure begins when the party enters a dungeon, and ends when the party has left the dungeon and divides up treasure.​

Part 4: The Adventure, beginning on p B19, is entirely about dungeon adventures. (The distinctive features of the Expert set are (i) rules for PCs above 3rd level, and (ii) wilderness adventuring.

Part 8: Dungeon Master Information opens, on p B51, by saying that

Before players can take their characters on adventures into dungeons, the DM must either create a dungeon or draw its map, or become familiar with one of TSR's dungeon modules.​

A group might use the Moldvay Basic rules and extrapolate beyond a dungeon. But the rules very clearly contemplate adventures that invovle no setting, and no worldbuilding, beyond a single (probably underground) building.

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.

What does it mean to say that elves are implied, but don't exist. If X implies Y, and X is the case, then so is Y. That's what implied means.

 

[pemerton]

some people like exploration campaigns, some people actually enjoy discovering and exploring the GM's creation.

On the other thread, when I've suggested this is one thing that worldbuilding is for, there has been a lot of disagreement. Most posters on that thread seem to deny that one function of worldbuilding is to establish stuff for the GM to tell to the players.