Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[pemerton]

Er...because that's how the game is usually played, perhaps?

If someone is saying that X is not necessary to Y, and you know of a way of Y-ing that - even if not usual - doesn't need X, wouldn't you at first assume that the someone is talking about that way of Y-ing?

And then maybe try to extrapolate from that instance that you're famiiar with to see what else they have in mind?

Rather than just assume they're talking about the mode of Y-ing that does require X, and are idiots?

are the adventures run each week supposed to be connected in any way (e.g. the same PCs, and-or a continuing storyline) or are they completely independent of each other. If the latter then you're talking about each week just being a one-shot. If the former, then sooner or later someone - be it the DM or one or more players - is going to start considering how these various adventures might be connected plot-wise or in-game-world history-wise or geographically.

<snip>

A campaign where play stops at the end of one dungeon and starts at the entrance to the next with nothing in between is, I posit, severely lacking.

I'm interested in [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s take on this - how is "severely lacking" different from "bad"?

 

[pemerton]

No, you referred to some "Choose your own Adventure Game"... which is not the same as what I said and a mis-characterization of the playstyle.

I referred to a number of things. Including that one point of worldbuilding is to give the GM stuff to tell the players. Just as you said. There might be more than one thing that worldbuilding does, and more than one way that it is expereinced (both in a given game, and across games).

 

[Lanefan]

OFTEN, I would estimate USUALLY, the overall world is not defined at the start in any great detail. Star Trek, for example, starts in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and establishes only the existence of the ship, its bridge crew, the existence of a 'United Federation of Planets', and that's about it. A few additional details are established during the episode, that the USS Enterprise is on a long-range exploration mission, that without its warp drive it is decades or centuries of travel time to home, etc. Now, SOME additional things were established by the show's producers by this time, but most of the detailed 'lore' of the milieu was established by writers in their scripts on a weekly basis from whole cloth.

The problem with this is unless all the writing is being done by the same person or very few people (almost never the case in a TV series) or is mostly done as a block ahead of time (e.g. the recent Battlestar Galactica reboot) glaring inconsistencies are going to develop in both the backstory and the ongoing plot, and AFAIC this is unforgivable in what's supposed to be a professionally-written thing even though the end result can still sometimes be entertaining.

X-Files was awful for this - by about season 5 as soon as you saw the writers' credit for an episode you'd know whether that episode would at least try to adhere to established canon and lore or throw it out the window. And don't get me started on Star Wars...

I expect the same would be true for Stargate SG1, etc.

Can't speak to this specific series, as my sum total viewing of it might come to an episode and a half...maybe.

The same pattern holds for other genre. In the D&D cartoon stuff is pretty much established as it happens. Mission Impossible simply created whatever organizations, locations, geopolitical situations, countries, etc. that were required for each week's episode.

Ignoring the bigger picture (overarching plot and-or internal consistency) in favour of the smaller (what's good for this episode), as it were.

I look at it the other way: if the bigger picture is solidly nailed down ahead of time then it'll be much easier for the smaller picture to take care of itself on the fly.

Obviously in an RPG context it can easily work the same way. All that need be established at first is the bare minimum framework to allow for the basic episode structure to be established. The rest will take care of itself. In a Story Now kind of rendition the nature of the episodic format will be partly dictated by the player's stated goals and interests, or perhaps by an overall campaign theme that is agreed on by the participants before it starts. Genre conventions can take care of much of the details, and the rest will come out through play. Each episode would probably address a specific character's or several character's dramatic needs. Judging by the kinds of things seen in the TV shows I mentioned there would likely be existential threats, moral quandries, physical danger, possibly threats to the status quo of the 'team' itself, etc.

One difference between a TV show and a D&D session is that with a TV show it'll be edited down (or up) to fit an exact length of time. In RPG play we don't have that certainty - we don't know how long each session might last and we also don't know how much will get done in any given amount of time within a session.

This difference is big enough to almost make the comparison - not quite meaningless, as there's still something of use in it, but certainly way far from perfect. We can't really look at a session as an episode, for example, as there's no way of knowing whether the plot-of-the-week will be resolved within one evening's play...or, conversely, whether it'll be resolved within a hour leaving the rest of the evening hung out to dry.

One can, however, divorce episode and session. From here, in traditional play one can then look at each adventure as an episode spanning two or ten or however-long-it-takes sessions of play; and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] suggests story-now can go the same way only substituting something else for "adventure".

That said, I still don't see any of this as an excuse for internal inconsistency and bad (or no) plot continuity.

Lan-"I wanna be in pictures"-efan

 

[Bedrockgames]

Most shows have setting/character bibles, and these are often well set. I am not 100% familiar with the process that they used to make the Original Series star trek. But pretty sure they had something like that by at least the 2nd season. But even if shows are making it up as they go, the point I was making is: they don't make it up as they are filming usually, there are writers who think and write about the stuff so it makes sense. If you look at OS, or Next Generation (or something like Babylon 5) There is clearly world building at work. A lot of the alien races you encounter each episode or as part of a story, are interesting because they are basically a thought experiment (i.e. what would happen if you had a culture that had X but not Y?). You can definitely introduce things as you go as well. No one is saying you have to limit yourself to stuff that is laid down in advance. I think what people are saying is world building can create a rich environment for adventure. It isn't just about looking at the sights through a window or going on the GMs plots (this last part of the argument is pretty confusing to me, since the driving force behind a lot of world building is an effort give the players an array of adventure options, rather than just presenting them with an adventure each week).

That said, I am not against people making stuff up as they go, having the PCs make stuff up, or discarding concerns about world building so they can focus on an adventure. My only point this entire time is none of those present a superior way of playing, or a more free way of playing. They are just different ways of playing. And there is value in world building if you explore it and use it well.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem with this is unless all the writing is being done by the same person or very few people (almost never the case in a TV series) or is mostly done as a block ahead of time (e.g. the recent Battlestar Galactica reboot) glaring inconsistencies are going to develop in both the backstory and the ongoing plot, and AFAIC this is unforgivable in what's supposed to be a professionally-written thing even though the end result can still sometimes be entertaining.

X-Files was awful for this - by about season 5 as soon as you saw the writers' credit for an episode you'd know whether that episode would at least try to adhere to established canon and lore or throw it out the window. And don't get me started on Star Wars...

Meh, I never personally understood the obsessive fan fascination with trivial details....

Anyway, in an RPG where the group running a game is unlikely to exceed 10 people, and is usually half that, this shouldn't be a problem. And the less lore there is, the less chance it will be contravened later by something else.

Can't speak to this specific series, as my sum total viewing of it might come to an episode and a half...maybe.

I seem to remember it being fairly consistent, though I'm far from an obsessive fan about these things, as I said before.

Ignoring the bigger picture (overarching plot and-or internal consistency) in favour of the smaller (what's good for this episode), as it were.

I look at it the other way: if the bigger picture is solidly nailed down ahead of time then it'll be much easier for the smaller picture to take care of itself on the fly.

I don't find that to be the case. Speaking from experience I know that the mass of material that is attached to my original D&D campaign world (probably 10 or more campaigns over 40 years) is practically impossible to reconcile or establish some sort of consistency against. The more lore there is, the more it will contradict itself and become inconsistent. Its best to have less lore, not more.

One difference between a TV show and a D&D session is that with a TV show it'll be edited down (or up) to fit an exact length of time. In RPG play we don't have that certainty - we don't know how long each session might last and we also don't know how much will get done in any given amount of time within a session.

This difference is big enough to almost make the comparison - not quite meaningless, as there's still something of use in it, but certainly way far from perfect. We can't really look at a session as an episode, for example, as there's no way of knowing whether the plot-of-the-week will be resolved within one evening's play...or, conversely, whether it'll be resolved within a hour leaving the rest of the evening hung out to dry.

Which is of course one advantage of Story Now, pacing is very flexible. You certainly cannot guarantee things will happen in an exact timeframe, but I am not really sure why that's critical.

One can, however, divorce episode and session. From here, in traditional play one can then look at each adventure as an episode spanning two or ten or however-long-it-takes sessions of play; and @AbdulAlhazred suggests story-now can go the same way only substituting something else for "adventure".

That said, I still don't see any of this as an excuse for internal inconsistency and bad (or no) plot continuity.

Lan-"I wanna be in pictures"-efan

Exactly, you can simply have each episode play out at its own pace.

I don't see why internal consistency or 'plot continuity' (by which in Story Now I would mean narrative consistency) would be any harder to achieve than in any other technique. I feel entirely confident in my ability to handle the internal consistency of a basic one-session-per-week RPG. I'm not super organized on the whole, but I can still note the main established facts and remember what the players seem to want to do.

 

[Lord Irongron]

There are plenty of RPer who are obsessively fascinating by the setting; those who aren't interested in DMing but nevertheless devour any and all source books. There are also those whose raison d'etre to the world RPGs comes due to a love of a particular world. I suspect over the years many of those who became fans of RPGs did so because they were attracted by the chance to play a game based upon their favourite TV Show/Game etc

Of course it wasn't always that way. Some old RPGs like Palladium or Rolemaster did not even include a world - these were systems one could use to play in a world of one's own choosing. In this cases world building was itself specifically implied.

For myself I'm attracted to some RPGs by the world (such as Warhammer, Paranoia) and others by the system (see Rolemaster above). For most players in games I've run the world itself is not so crucial; they're really in it for the adventure.

That being said I've spent a long time making worlds, but the ratio between how much time I spent on it and how many hours we actually gamed there leaves me inclined to say it's often not a great idea.

I guess there is one other thing I'd say about world building (specifically in regarding RPGs) and that is how much 'weight' it carries in the imagination of players. This isn't about the actual quality so much as how much of themselves they have invested in it beforehand, facing off against one of the Nazgul in Middle Earth is almost certainly going to feel more exciting that facing Malagod of the Bone Tower in a custom settling, even if the latter is 'better'.

So for a DM, by making one's own world you're also making a big ask of your players - not to just play the game, but also take the time to immerse themselves in your world. Many may not want to, and even whey do it will not translate to other games, films, books, as is the case in an established setting. For them it's 'dead' knowledge, heck its not even a conversation topic in future years as nobody else will have any clue what is being talked about.

This all leads me neatly on to the Forgotten Realms, which is where I work. By one standard it is one of the most lacklustre settings out there; being almost entirely derivative of other fiction and real world mythology. Yet by another it is perfect for tabletop RP. Whatever 'theme' of adventure you're aiming for, be it a Nordic Saga or being pitted against the minions an Arch Devil of the Nine Hells it has something for everyone. In short it is a setting that people are familar with, even if they have never encountered it.

So is world building bad? Well it sure is fun. I wouldn't recommend it is as a means to an end, but sure can be an enjoyable hobby.

 

[Lanefan]

This all leads me neatly on to the Forgotten Realms, which is where I work. By one standard it is one of the most lacklustre settings out there; being almost entirely derivative of other fiction and real world mythology. Yet by another it is perfect for tabletop RP. Whatever 'theme' of adventure you're aiming for, be it a Nordic Saga or being pitted against the minions an Arch Devil of the Nine Hells it has something for everyone. In short it is a setting that people are familar with, even if they have never encountered it.

Players/DMs who have any significant experience in RPGs - D&D in particular - are quite likely to be at least vaguely familiar with FR, and Greyhawk, and maybe a few other settings.

But someone brand new to it? Doesn't matter whether you put 'em in FR or your own homebrew setting, it'll all be new and - hopefully - fun and exciting.

And while I agree FR is a very flexible setting in terms of what you can do with (or to) it, a half-decent homebrew setting can be every bit as flexible; with the pleasant side benefit of never having to worry about the risks of using a canned setting: canon lawyers and-or unrealized expectations.

So is world building bad? Well it sure is fun. I wouldn't recommend it is as a means to an end, but sure can be an enjoyable hobby.

A line from an old song of mine sums this up nicely:

"While producing these, my friend
The means justify the end"

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

There are plenty of RPer who are obsessively fascinating by the setting; those who aren't interested in DMing but nevertheless devour any and all source books.

I've certainly known plenty like that, though imho/x, it was more a thing in the 90s...

. I suspect over the years many of those who became fans of RPGs did so because they were attracted by the chance to play a game based upon their favourite TV Show/Game etc

Vanishingly rare, IMX - but there's tremendous crossover in RPG circles with more mainstream fandom - so licenced games sell mainly to gamers who are also fans, and never have rivaled D&D as the gateway to the hobby.

 

[Lord Irongron]

I've certainly known plenty like that, though imho/x, it was more a thing in the 90s...

Yes, I'm probably showing my age there!

There is one significant advantage of a home-brew setting that didn't occur to me last night, and that is the potential for the party to live through/take part in historic & world changing events.

I don't know about other DMs but when playing in an established setting I'm inclined never to make signficant changes as part of the narrative of the adventure. It would feel rather presumptuous to raze a well known city or kill a well known NPC. In a self-made world the party can play a direct role in its formation.

 

[Maxperson]

There is one significant advantage of a home-brew setting that didn't occur to me last night, and that is the potential for the party to live through/take part in historic & world changing events.

I don't know about other DMs but when playing in an established setting I'm inclined never to make signficant changes as part of the narrative of the adventure. It would feel rather presumptuous to raze a well known city or kill a well known NPC. In a self-made world the party can play a direct role in its formation.

I've never even so much as paused before doing something like that to an established setting. Once I pay for it, it belongs to me and if I or the players do something major, it happens. I see no presumption in doing something like this. To expect others who buy the setting to conform to my changes would be presumptuous, but short of that, no.