Forked from "An Epiphany" thread: Is World Building "Necessary"?

[Hussar]

"That's just bad" in place of "that's not what I like" is pretty contentious.

Funny thing is, some D&Ders happen to like the classic game. Encounters that have nothing to do with a "story" are part of the game. When you turn your preference into a put-down, some folks might think it nice if you were to go off and find a game you actually like instead of hanging around with one (and players thereof) you feel obliged to insult.

If you express your likes and dislikes as merely what they are, you'll probably get a friendlier response.

Y'know what? I'm not going to apologize for this one. The Nazi Zombie Bugbear encounter that you drop into the campaign for no reason other than you happened to roll on the random encounter table is bad gaming. It serves absolutely no purpose.

To me, if that's good gaming, then so is any MMO or CRPG you care to name where you have exactly this sort of thing.

Explain to me how a "role" playing game is well served by having pointless, meaningless combat parachuted into the campaign and how does it not turn tabletop RPG's into a PnP version of Diablo?

I know it's bad form to widdle on someone's playstyle, but, y'know what? This isn't 1984. We've moved on from these sorts of games where you put the monster manual on the table and your campaign starts at Aarococra and stops at zombie.

I love combat. I loves me the hack. But, even I balk at the idea that a "good" game of RPG's is tabletop wargaming.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Y'know what? I'm not going to apologize for this one. The Nazi Zombie Bugbear encounter that you drop into the campaign for no reason other than you happened to roll on the random encounter table is bad gaming. It serves absolutely no purpose.

Not everything needs to serve a freaking "story."

Since when the hell did playing in a setting where things happen that don't make the PCs believe the world revolves around them become such a bad thing?

I like the idea of things happening that don't involve my PC. I like the idea of things going on that I have no idea about, that there are things going on that I simply don't - at a given point - have the means to influence, but could if I so chose.

Sometimes, Dorothy, following the yellow brick road gets freaking boring.

Explain to me how a "role" playing game is well served by having pointless, meaningless combat parachuted into the campaign and how does it not turn tabletop RPG's into a PnP version of Diablo?

You are so... missing the point.

In Diablo or MMOs, you don't ask questions when some random mob attacks you. You accept it as part of the game. It's a thing, it goes on, whatever, it doesn't really matter.

In a tabletop game, the difference is that the PCs can ask questions. Why is there a random Nazi zombie bugbear running around out here? Is there a necromancer nearby doing it? Is it a result of some ancient burial ground nearby that is acting up? And sure, the DM may not have necessarily thought of a good reason for why this random encounter took place, but improv is part of the game.

Sometimes the random encounter becomes a lot more interesting than whatever linear crap you had waiting for the group.

I know it's bad form to widdle on someone's playstyle, but, y'know what? This isn't 1984. We've moved on from these sorts of games where you put the monster manual on the table and your campaign starts at Aarococra and stops at zombie.

And I thought we had moved on past the idea of linear plots, having realized that we can find those in games like Diablo and MMOs, and decided that capitalizing on the differences in tabletop games to make them a different experience was a good call.

Apparently not, though.

 

[Hussar]

Not everything needs to serve a freaking "story."

Since when the hell did playing in a setting where things happen that don't make the PCs believe the world revolves around them become such a bad thing?

Really? Not everything in a role play game needs to serve a story? Honestly? THAT'S the point you want to make. That a collection of random fights with absolutely no connection makes a GOOD role playing game? Is this really what you want to say?

And a game where events occur that don't revolve around the PC's? Why would you as the DM bother and why would I as the player care? If something happens that has no relation to my character, then what purpose does it serve? If the dragon kidnaps a princess in a land I've never heard of and cannot get to, who cares?

Sorry, but I do believe that the campaign DOES revolve around the PC's. It would be like spending twenty minutes of Star Wars watching random Storm Trooper talk to his captain about the price of new blaster parts. WHO CARES?

In a tabletop game, the difference is that the PCs can ask questions. Why is there a random Nazi zombie bugbear running around out here? Is there a necromancer nearby doing it? Is it a result of some ancient burial ground nearby that is acting up? And sure, the DM may not have necessarily thought of a good reason for why this random encounter took place, but improv is part of the game.

But the answer to the question is none of the above. The answer is, the DM rolled a random encounter that had absolutely nothing to do with the campaign. It's totally random. If he suddenly goes back and starts rewriting his campaign so that the encounter makes sense, you're going to lose continuity very, very quickly.

If the encounters are set up so that they fit within the context of the campaign, that's one thing. If you tailor a random encounter table to take into account elements of your campaign, that's fine. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the DM who attacks the party for no reason, other than he rolled a 1 on some arbitrary die and then rolled 15 on the "Wilderness encounter" table. It has no story, no reason to be there. It's totally disconnected from everything. That the DM now has to flail around trying to retcon his setting to fit in with this random event pretty much blows any idea of continuity out of the water.

Or, to put it another way, if the dragon shows up in the town out of the blue, one would reasonably ask, "How come no one's ever heard stories about a great big dragon that lives around here?"

Again, linear or non-linear are not dictated here. You can have non-linear plots that do not require completely disconnected events to suddenly pop up for no reason. You can have linear plots that are completely made of random encounter tables.

Linear does not require premade nor does non-linear require random.

 

[rounser]

We've done this thread before. Because there is no clear delineation between game-relevant and game-irrelevant worldbuilding, and people are so passionate about the hobby-within-the-hobby, the thread went for 56 pages:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/193738-why-worldbuilding-bad.html

By the way, IMO Hussar is right. Worldbuilding is enshrined and fetishised in D&D culture, and doesn't deserve anywhere near the status or time and attention it gets, relative to making actual adventure material or campaign arcs.

I understand why: it's fun and rewarding and offers a sense of demiurge-level power to stamp your personality on realms that never were, whereas prepping for the nitty gritty of an encounter or campaign arc is often too much like hard work. Making world maps is fun, and reading macro-level setting material is more fun than reading adventures or actually prepping.

I think the best kind of worldbuilding is low level, actual encounters that PCs can interact with, like in the Wilderlands setting (although I don't think the implementation is perfect). But macro-level wankery is the rule, and yes, it's bizarre (until you consider the psychology behind why that might be).

 

[Bacons]

I think the fetishisation of worldbuilding in fantasy roleplaying is related to the fetishisation of worldbuilding in fantasy fiction writing. There is a pervasive idea amongst a lot of people trying to write fantasy (and SF) that, because it worked so well for Tolkien etc., it is the only way, and D&D is no stranger to Tolkien obsession either.

I like worldbuilding, and I like looking at worlds other people have built, but I don't think it is overly helpful to advise people that it is the One True Path.


(I have to disagree with Hussar, however, that random encounters are omgbad, even if completely random encounter tables aren't something I would utilise myself. I, personally, think the only worthwhile definition of a "good" game is one in which both the players and the GM have fun.)

 

[rounser]

To help define what people are talking about, I offer up the example of Keep on the Borderlands.

The background material on the "Realm of Law" and chaos. Is this too little worldbuilding for you to run a campaign on in the area? How much do you need? How much space (world) do you need to run a campaign in? Do you prefer quantity of space or quality of detail (because these seem mutually exclusive)?

The unnamed denizens of the keep. Is this sketchy adventure design, sketchy setting design (Hussar-speak), or sketchy worldbuilding?

The Caves of Chaos. Is detailing these adventure design or worldbuilding? What about the wilderness? What about the keep?

Giving a keep NPC an adventure plot hook to take the PCs to the Caves. Worldbuilding? Adventure design? Story? Campaign arc? All of these? What about the hermit in the wilderness and his pets?

 

[jdrakeh]

Really? Not everything in a role play game needs to serve a story? Honestly? THAT'S the point you want to make. That a collection of random fights with absolutely no connection makes a GOOD role playing game? Is this really what you want to say?

Dude. Some people enjoy playing D&D like that. If you don't, that's cool — but is "If you don't tell a story with D&D, then you're a useless moron stuck in 1984!" really what you want to say?

I usually see eye to eye with you but I have to confess that it really does seem like you're beating the bad, wrong, fun drum much too hard in this instance. This isn't 1984?

 

[S'mon]

I remember 1984... It was the time when linear "story" and "plot" was replacing the environment-based or "sandbox" game as the default mode of play.

I strongly disagree with Hussar that everything must serve an overarching story/plot or it's a waste of time. I find "Adventure Paths" very boring. I like being able to explore a world (even if that world is emergent in play, not pre-written). Random encounter tables are a great tool to aid exploration.

 

[Imaro]

Y'know what? I'm not going to apologize for this one. The Nazi Zombie Bugbear encounter that you drop into the campaign for no reason other than you happened to roll on the random encounter table is bad gaming. It serves absolutely no purpose.

Ah, here we go again with Hussar proclaiming himself arbitrator of "good gaming" using both an antagonistic tone and hyperbolic extremes... why am I not surprised.

To me, if that's good gaming, then so is any MMO or CRPG you care to name where you have exactly this sort of thing.

Then perhaps you should ask yourself, just why your view of "good gaming" is so limited? Oh, yeah love the MMO reference... Though I will say your eagerness to lump all CRPG's and MMO's, IMO, shows a lack of experience with them... also, who said many of them aren't "good gaming" and if they're not, why do people play them?

Explain to me how a "role" playing game is well served by having pointless, meaningless combat parachuted into the campaign and how does it not turn tabletop RPG's into a PnP version of Diablo?

Because both the PC's and the DM can make them meaningful and important in the context of the game beond the single random encounter if they desire to.

A fight with your run of the mill street scum in a rain drenched alley can have reprcusiions both good and ill if a party chooses to show mercy. Perhaps one of their number reforms and becomes an informant for the PC's... perhaps they seek vengeance on the PC's and become a new antagonist in the world? Perhaps it just serves the purpose of showing just how dangerous the Poor Quarter is... Or maybe it can make one neighborhood in the Poor Quarter a little safer.

I honestly am sorry that you can only equate a random encounter (which doesn't even have to be combat based) with "pointless, meaningless combat..." but then you are the authority on what is or isn't "good gaming"...I guess.

I know it's bad form to widdle on someone's playstyle, but, y'know what? This isn't 1984. We've moved on from these sorts of games where you put the monster manual on the table and your campaign starts at Aarococra and stops at zombie.

Wow, just wow. Do you realize how high and mighty you sound? And again with the extremes to prove your point..."put the monster manual on the table and your campaign starts at Aarococra and stops at zombie."... is that really what a random encounter is. You know Hussar your arguments would be better served if you didn't always resort to this type of thing.

I love combat. I loves me the hack. But, even I balk at the idea that a "good" game of RPG's is tabletop wargaming.

Again a random encounter doesn't have to be combat... and depending on what you or your players make of it can lead to interesting possibilities game wise. I guess it just depends on how much thought and imagination one is willing to put into their game. Perhaps your "story-mode" of running games has limited you to only viewing things within that particular box and how they can fit in with your methodology... I would say before attacking something perhaps you should try peeking outside of that box...

 

[Imaro]

You know I'm curious concerning Hussar and Majoru and a few others, when do you start designing a campaign. I see you all talk about the time limit and work and how no one could possibly detail all the stuff world builders claim, but I design my campaign world before actual play starts.

As an exmple right now my group is running a multi-DM Castles and Crusades campaign (typical high fantasy)... but I know afterwards I'm going to run a 4e game (trying for the 3rd time to sell my players on it, but if not Pathfinder will be out by then and I'll use that) and thus have begun (using Obsidian Portal) to create a campaign wiki that details my world. I have months (until around September) to finish this before we would start playing so I don't run into the limited time only problem you all seem to have.

Will everything about the City of Gulmenghast be detailed before play? No. Will more than enough be detailed that the PC's will be able to run in almost any direction they want to, and I'll be bale to handle it with ease... I believe so since this is how I tend to world build, but we'll see.