Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Hussar]

Really, you could still use the same world. It wouldn't matter all that much since so little of the world is fleshed out beyond a few locations specific to a given campaign.

Just to go back a second about what RC said about world building and clerics. To me, the difference is the same as the difference between what's in the PHB (the entire core pantheon in about one page) and S. K. Reynold's fantastic Core Belief articles in Dragon. I love those articles. They are well written and interesting.

They are, OTOH, pretty much superfluous to the game though. You can play a very good game without doing anything more than what's in the PHB. You don't need 15 page writeups about each god. I like them, I do, but, they are pretty indulgent. Again, I think RC is looking for a definitive cut off point. You have to have some information about the diety in order to play. That's a given. On the other end of the scale though, you have the Core Belief's articles.

 

[Hussar]

Interestingly enough, as I read Wolgang Baur's articles on adventure building, I noticed this point:

Simple Backstory: Most DMs and designers hate to hear it, but much of the time lavished on history and background is wasted energy. Players never find out who dug the tomb, how the wizard was betrayed by her apprentice, or why the assassin guild changed sides and disappeared. Working on backstory doesn't improve the gameplay experience for anyone but the bards and scholars obsessed with legends or lore. Unless it connects directly to action in the current timeframe (and the PCs have a way of learning it), skip the involved history. Save that for sourcebooks.

This is not to say cut it all. Details of which faction can be turned against another, which guard might take a bribe, or what the villain ultimately plans to do if the party doesn't stop him are all appropriate. Make sure your backstory is recent and relevant; avoid anything that starts "Thousands of years ago..."

Which is pretty much exactly what I've been saying. Nice to know that I'm not completely alone in this.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Which is pretty much exactly what I've been saying. Nice to know that I'm not completely alone in this.

Is anyone here really advocating that the DM give priority to information that isn't going to benefit the campaign?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Is anyone here really advocating that the DM give priority to information that isn't going to benefit the campaign?

World building doesn't always benefit the campaign.

Unless the players are deeply interested in the minutiae of your imaginary land of make-believe, the cut-off point is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak -- where the history meets the adventure.

 

[Darth Shoju]

World building doesn't always benefit the campaign.

Unless the players are deeply interested in the minutiae of your imaginary land of make-believe, the cut-off point is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak -- where the history meets the adventure.

Right. And like I said, if it doesn't benefit the campaign, then it shouldn't have a higher priority over what does. That philosophy stands for either worldbuilding-first or adventure-first. If you are designing an adventure path based on a specific theme for a group that wants to game in a sandbox-style campaign then that is just as much of a waste of time as excessive worldbuilding.

 

[Emerikol]

I think the original blogger isn't even right about writing. Some great writers are painstaking in their world building while others basically seat of the pants it. Great writers are numbered in both ranks. It depends on your tastes which stories you like.

And, a campaign in my opinion benefits greatly from a well designed world. You of course don't design every detail but you start at the beginning with a laser focus and gradually the knowledge gets a bit less defined as you go outward.

I can see it done both ways successfully. But where the players are playing I find you need to know if I'm going to enjoy it as a player.

 

[Hussar]

Holy threadomancy Batman!!!

Fun thread though. I remember this one.

And, as I stated in this thread, world building, outside of simply setting the scene, is, IMO, a complete waste of time and largely a pile of DM wankery. Set the scene, and get to the point. Worry about the entire royal family's family tree going back three generations is pointless. You have the king, you have the queen, you have a kid or three as needed by the plot and off you go. Done and done.

 

[Imaculata]

Holy threadomancy Batman!!!

Fun thread though. I remember this one.

And, as I stated in this thread, world building, outside of simply setting the scene, is, IMO, a complete waste of time and largely a pile of DM wankery. Set the scene, and get to the point. Worry about the entire royal family's family tree going back three generations is pointless. You have the king, you have the queen, you have a kid or three as needed by the plot and off you go. Done and done.

I don't agree with this at all. I think world building can really help with the internal consistency of the campaign setting. And I think a lot of players can appreciate a campaign more when it feels that the world was well thought out. And with that I mean that there are believable religions, cultures and nations that inhabit the fictional world of the DM.

 

[DRF]

I don't agree with this at all. I think world building can really help with the internal consistency of the campaign setting. And I think a lot of players can appreciate a campaign more when it feels that the world was well thought out. And with that I mean that there are believable religions, cultures and nations that inhabit the fictional world of the DM.

Jeez man I just want to kill some goblins in a cave.

 

[Imaculata]

Jeez man I just want to kill some goblins in a cave.

It all depends on what kind of campaign you run (or want to play in).

My players tend to be very heavily invested in a good story. And so they care why things happen.
For example:

My players cared that the region in which my campaign takes place had a history with a notorious pirate captain, who died due to an intricate plot by various important characters. They cared because that same pirate captain would eventually be brought back to life, and now they had an undead pirate captain to deal with. The various historical events tie directly into the events that the players are currently involved with, and it ties into their backstories.

Now maybe you don't care a lot about things like storytelling and character backstories, but I do, and so do my players. In my experience, good world building helps good storytelling. This doesn't mean that the players need to be bored to death with the royal family tree going back 6 generations, or the history of each and every temple. But they care about the balance of power in my setting; who is in charge of what, and why.

Just because you have a lot of lore to your setting, doesn't mean it is good lore, or makes for a good story (I'm looking at you World of Warcraft). However, some amount of world building definitely helps to bring your story to life. This doesn't mean that a DM needs to write the next silmarillion.