Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[TheSword]

It’s seems discussion has descended into a war of attrition. So long folks.

 

[Lanefan]

It does make more sense. I also don't have as much time to prepare as I used to. Back in the day, I created my own worlds with maps, history, etc. These days I'm so busy that it's all I can do to do a bit of prep on adventures now and then. That's the main reason I run my games in the Forgotten Realms. It already has all the prep work I need done and allows me to focus on adventures within that world.

That said, I do find that there is a difference in my games. I have to improvise a lot more which is pretty clear to the players. My improvisation is pretty good, but it's not so smooth that you can't tell at times when its happening, which does bring down the quality a bit from where my game used to be. While my players don't mind, I'm sure my game wouldn't be one that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] would want to play in.

Having read all kinds of posts of yours regarding your game, I've every reason to think I'd probably quite enjoy it.

I've no objection to a DM winging it now and then, be it in narration or in rulings...hell, I do it too; and my frantic flapping is sometimes clearly obvious to all to the point where we joke and laugh about it even as it's happening!

My concern both as DM and player is consistency: that whatever is improvised now becomes part of the game lore/rules/whatever henceforth. Example: once Karnos is established on the fly to be 6 days walk from Torcha, that it'll always be 6 days walk from Torcha. I don't see you as someone who would disagree with this.

Lanefan

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, he has. That those instances of play occurred I obviously can't dispute.

What I can and will dispute is that this sort of play can provide a campaign that is and remains sustainable for the long term (by which I mean anything beyond just a few sessions), without a ridiculous amount of work probably done by the GM to record everything about the setting that comes up in play so as to be consistent should it ever be encountered again. @pemerton 's game logs - those that we've seen - are exhaustive in their mechanical detail as well as their events recording and probably do give enough info to provide at least some long-term consistency...and in this I maintain that he's so unusual as to possibly be unique. (that's supposed to be a compliment, in case you're wondering!)

I dispute that it can continue to do so over time, as things get forgotten or numbers/time/distance/locations shift or morph in ways they shouldn't or things get skipped between scenes that end up needing to be retconned.

And note I'm not necessarily suggesting that traditional play (including worldbuilding) doesn't have rocks of its own to run aground on. It does, and over time I think I've probably hit them all. But I also think it's got more versatility in what it can do or be made to do in terms of what type-style-length-size of games or campaigns it can support, which gives it the advantage.

Eh, I'm not some sort of super detailed note taker or recorder of exactly what happened in every session. Even so, I don't recall ever running into some problem of 'incoherence'. Certainly its possible to make up everything as you go over the course of, say, 50 to 100 sessions, and have it all work out. I never had problems with things getting 'out of whack' somehow.

Now, I have never had a single continuous chain of playing sessions with basically the same players and same or rotating characters playing through a sequence of scenarios, what would often be termed a 'campaign' (though sometimes people use the term in slightly different ways) that lasted for many years. I've had some that lasted 2-4 years. I've had the same players come back to the same basic setting, maybe some even reusing existing characters, at a later date and establish a follow-on to an earlier game. I just don't see very many campaigns surviving for 10 years at a time. I know there are quite a few, in absolute numbers, which have, but in terms of being a subset of all campaigns, its a tiny subset.

I guess my point here is, maybe I can't run the same thing Story Now for 10 years, I don't know. I can't PROVE that can happen, but I think it is such an edge-case of games that I'm unlikely to ever have the chance to test that. I can only attest that 'many sessions' are quite feasible, and that you don't have to have the powers of recording (or recall, whichever it is) of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] in order for that to work.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To each their own. Personally, I don't see it as an issue. If I were to want assassins going after the party, maybe someone related to the NPCs goes to the guild and hires them several days later (or simply pays someone to track down and kill the characters). Maybe, someone goes to an official and the official sends out assassins. Maybe, a more powerful related NPC takes it upon themselves to track down the party with the help of allies.

Hell, in one campaign, after the party crossed the only Wizard's Guild and killed a few low level members, I didn't have assassin's hired by them show up until several sessions later. When they did, they were accompanied by one or two guild wizards. If the party escaped or killed them them, another group would show up at a later date. It was about a year or two in real life play before the party found out how they were being tracked and it went back to the thief stealing a guild ring off one of the dead wizards on the second session of play (which was a continuation of the first night).

But in MY terms the questions that spring to mind here are:

1) what is the point of establishing 'there are no assassins in this town' if you're just going to have assassins show up anyway! I mean, what did this 'detail' do for you? How did it matter? What you're basically saying is "I can plausibly just ignore the consequences of any detail so I can generate the plot I desire." which is exactly MY point, these details don't really mean much....

2) The whole thing with the Wizard's Guild would stink of hidden backstory in the sort of games I run. Why is the game all about how this guild is perpetually tracking the party, unless this is somehow central to the agenda being expressed in this specific game. If so, its great, but I would think there would then be more dramatically satisfying elements underpinning it than "oh, this fact I couldn't possibly know was responsible for it." (IE you would have it be a consequence of something a PC did as part of his 'thing' which defines his character, or a choice which grew out of that). If the whole guild thing does NOT involve anything the player's are interested in, then why are they being subjected to it in the first place? I mean, "oh gosh we stole this ring" is pretty thin gruel in my book.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In one of the few in person games I ever got to play in we started playing Age of Worms in Greyhawk. I do not remember how I gained access to this information because I am not a big setting buff (for financial reasons) but I decided that I was going to be a Priest of Vathris, the hero-deity that was slain by Kyuss. I think I might have been a bit of a killjoy because my character was in a little too deep with the "anguish" aspect.

But I had a goal for that campaign which never could have actually lasted long enough for me to complete it: I had this idea that I am a bit hazy on now but I think it was: I would obtain the black spear that the distraught Vathris carries around with him which Kyuss used to kill him, then I would cast miracle with some grand statement in conjunction with striking the killing blow against Kyuss and then Vathris would be reborn in my character's body.

This idea would have been hella epic if I could have ever pulled it off. And it was an idea that was born as a natural extension of the world of Greyhawk. I probably never would have come up as anything so dramatic as a player in a generic, unspecified world. I am a bit of a fan of the idea that creativity is taking this out of the box and then building something with what you have left. Worldbuilding is an enabler of this kind of creativity. Of course some people will not need or want it. But some will.

OK, I agree that you MIGHT not have come up with Vathris and a black spear, and etc. You probably COULD have come up with some of that backstory though for your character. Certainly the concept and some of the names, etc. I'm sure it would be less detailed, but is it the detail that made it engaging or the dramatic aspect of it?

And then the more interesting question, to me: You say it was basically impossible to attain this kind of play using the techniques/system/whatever that was in place for that game. What kind of a game would have made that POSSIBLE? Would that have been an interesting game to you and could you have played out the scenario you outline? Could you have at least had the choice to ATTEMPT to do so? Would that have been cool? I mean, you might have failed to kill Kyuss or whatever, but TO ME it would seem like the whole scene would be super epic!

 

[Lanefan]

First off, xp for that chart - that's amazing! I think I might just steal this idea and take it to our game tonight, where we've been over ten years busy in enmeshing ourselves in a plot that seems to have neither end nor beginning.

And now, back into the trenches...

As a player: to make choices that will express one's character and shape the outcome of whatever it is that is at stake in play. As a GM: to work with the players to establish whatever it is that is at stake in play, and then push the players (and thereby their PCs) in respect of it.

Cool. This could in theory happen in any game, however, though it needs the right kind of players (who both seek and enjoy such high-drama situations) and DM (willing and able to facilitate such).

As for myself, I'm more interested in pushing the PCs rather than stressing the players; who are in theory just here for a good time (as am I).

Some people would rather have outcomes be determined by action resolution rather than dictated by the GM's hitherto-unrevealed and unilateral framing. I don't see how that is so hard to understand.

Who do you think disagrees with this? Obviously if there is no shop, then no shop can be found.

What we're discussing is how it might be established, as part of the preparation for and play of a RPG, that there is or isn't a shop.

And the mechanics for determining such, yes.

You have participated extensively in the other worldbuilding thread. In that thread you've read the account of the bazaar- and-feather scene; and taken part in a lot of discussions about it.

Now recall how you and some other posters have said that you would handle it - include how you have been critical of the idea of opening the game with the PCs at the bazaar and an angel feather being offered for sale.

The fact that the technique is something you're critical of seems to suggest that it is not the same as what is involved in worldbuilding.

Assuming - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that the bazaar example is typical, my criticisms of it lie in how anything leading up to that point is essentially skipped over, not least of which is an opportunity for the party to meet and get to know each other. Also, framing it such that the PC or party have to explore the town a bit before finding the feather merchant gives you a chance to tell them - yes, tell them - what the town's all about, so as to better inform their later decisions, approaches, and actions.

If the orc kills the PC, and the GM has decided ahead of tiem that this is what will happen, that mode of decision-making is irrelevant to the here-and-now result. Nevertheless, many RPGers think it matters to the play of the game whether the combat is resolved via the standard mechanics, or by the GM deciding the outcome in advance.

Absolutely. The three (or four) "pillars" of the game work differently and thus are probably best served by using different mechanics.

Combat has more or less robust mechanics in pretty much all RPGs.

Exploration mechanics are a more open question...certainly 1e D&D and its ilk have the mechanics for small-scale dungeon exploration nailed down; but wilderness or city or space exploration mechanics are kind of all over the place, and there's a case to be made here that less is more. In any case, though, trying to make these mechanics work the same as combat is a square peg/round hole situation.

Social mechanics are covered in widely-varying quality by some game systems but not all, and here IMO less is certainly more no matter what. Matching these to combat is more like trying to put a square peg into something that has no hole at all.

The fourth "pillar" - downtime - really doesn't have or need much by way of action-level mechanics; more broad-based stuff like training, stronghold building, spell research etc. is either covered by the game system in use or can be handled case by case.

Action declarations aren't normally made on a whim - they pertain to the play of the game.

But if the players thing that the presence of a sage is plausible (and if they didn't, they wouldn't have their PCs try and find one), then that seems to settle the question of verisimilitude. Doesn't it?

It does...though part of the fun of playing is to be able to try the implausible.

You know - thinking about it, that's perhaps part of where story-now and I drift apart. As a player, I want to (and will!) try the implausible or impossible or just plain absurd now and then just for fun. But from what I can tell story-now (and I can't think of a better phrasing but this isn't perfect) takes itself too seriously for this sort of thing. High drama and high tension isn't often the stuff laughs are made of, and I'm in it for the laughs and entertainment most of the time.

Given that there are no shortage of players who prefer APs to "story now", I don't think that published/shared settings are under any sort of threat!

Given that it is central to "story now" that there is no "the story", it doesn't naturally lend itself to tournament/convention-type play, although I have played in convention games that approximate to it: normally the first session is used for the players to establish their feel for the PCs while the GM sets the scene; and the second session is the crunch.

I wasn't thinking so much of tournament or convention play, but of ongoing RPGA or AL-type play where you can establish your character during the weekly game at your FLGS then take said character to another game at a different store and drop it in, then take it to a convention and drop it into a game there, then return to your FLGS and keep the same character going; with all of these contributing to the character's continuing growth and development.

Personally this style of play isn't for me, but I recognize its significance as a major means of both attracting new players (and DMs) to the hobby and keeping them engaged once in; and thus I maintain that any RPG that wants to move beyond niche-within-the-hobby status kinda needs to set this up.

If this is not already obvious - for instance, if the game is "generic fantasy" then the answer to the questions about transport are horses, carts/wagons, and, if a port town, boats/ships - then if it is just colour someone at the table can make something up, and if it matters then checks can be declared and resolved.

If it's a major city in a magical world "teleport" may also be a transport answer.

But rather than going through all the checks-resolutions, isn't it both easier and quicker just to tell us up front what we know about the place, at least on an overview level? It could be as simple as:

"The campaign starts in Karnos on a warm sunny Midsummers' Day; each of you in your backgrounds has given your rationale for being in town. Karnos is a busy seaport town on the south coast of a region known as Decast, surrounded by gentle farmland to the north, east and west and with a good harbour to the south leading to open water. Major trade routes lead west and north. Its resident population is about 5000, with easily about another 1000 transients - mostly crew from the many tall ships docked or anchored here - in town much of the time. The town is mostly safe except for the "docklands", a few areas of dark alleys and shady characters near the waterfront; elsewhere the local constabulary - backed if needed by Count Vertuin's (the local ruler) strong militia - enforce order, sometimes with a heavy hand. As it's a port town people of nearly all races and cultures can easily be found, as can temples to most major faiths and pantheons; the resident population is mostly Human with a smattering of Hobbits and Part-Elves. By day the streets are often full, as are the many taverns, pubs and inns; at night the sound of revelry often echoes between the buildings until the wee hours; there is no formal curfew. Gear and equipment both mundane and exotic of almost any kind and size is available here; particularly at the twice-weekly markets in Dorian Plaza, the town's central square...and today is a market day."

There. How long did that take to narrate? Two minutes, tops; probably less, and not a single die was rolled. And now your players have a much stronger sense of atmosphere and knowledge of their surroundings than they otherwise would have (and which matches that of their PCs, even better!) to inform their decisions and actions; and from here you can either a) frame them straight into the market or their inn or a common meeting point or wherever or b) ask them individually what they are doing today...someone looking for exotic gear, for example, might head for the market.

Happy as I am to be flattered, frankly I think you're exaggerating in both respects. Keeping track of the events of play is not that hard; and to the extent that it is, I don't think worldbuilding GMs are going to do any better a job of it.

I guess my point is that worldbuilding DM's don't have to do as much of it during play, as the background stuff has already been done.

And this matters to me. I can't write and talk/listen at the same time (and know very few if any people who can), so the less in-session writing I have to do the better; because every minute I spend writing is a minute not spent talking or listening - and if I'm not talking or listening quite often that means things quickly grind to a halt...which kinda defeats the purpose.

I've attached the chart that one of my players maintained for our RM OA game, in pretty much its final state (after about 10 years of play).

As said above, this is one hell of a chart!

Lanefan

 

[Kaodi]

OK, I agree that you MIGHT not have come up with Vathris and a black spear, and etc. You probably COULD have come up with some of that backstory though for your character. Certainly the concept and some of the names, etc. I'm sure it would be less detailed, but is it the detail that made it engaging or the dramatic aspect of it?

And then the more interesting question, to me: You say it was basically impossible to attain this kind of play using the techniques/system/whatever that was in place for that game. What kind of a game would have made that POSSIBLE? Would that have been an interesting game to you and could you have played out the scenario you outline? Could you have at least had the choice to ATTEMPT to do so? Would that have been cool? I mean, you might have failed to kill Kyuss or whatever, but TO ME it would seem like the whole scene would be super epic!

?? The only problems were that our group only lasted to about level 7 I think before disbanding and that even if it had gone on I would have had to survive for another 13 levels to get to the point where I would be in a position to do it. You fight Kyuss at the end of Age of Worms I think?

 

[Hussar]

I don’t really no why no-myth is being drawn into the discussion (other than as part of some weird historical cosmic battle.)

The original article isn’t regarding No-myth. There doesn’t seem to be any debate over whether some prep is needed. It’s just a question of how much.

It's nice when people actually recognize the issue, even this far in, without resorting to all sorts of straw men and other silly buggers.

And can say it succinctly without resorting to hundred line dissertations.

 

[Hussar]

It's funny. I got asked for specific criticisms, which I provided. Instead of actually discussing these criticisms, all conversation got immediately shut down with those who didn't like my criticisms basically either telling me that they never happen, don't matter or never happen at their table and thus, can never actually happen in the wild.

Sigh.

Look, I presented why I, me, myself, Hussar, don't like world building and why I think it's mostly a waste of time to feed the DM's ego. The fact that world builders point to works like The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings as examples of why we should world build just makes me dig in my heels more. The Lord of the Rings would have been a short story if I wrote it. I've tried to read it multiple times and every single time I skip entire pages because it's mind numbingly boring setting wank.

The notion that this is what we should look to for inspiration as a DM is just wrong, IMO. It's a complete waste of time that would be FAR better spent on actually creating and running good adventures.

 

[Greg K]

But in MY terms the questions that spring to mind here are:

1) what is the point of establishing 'there are no assassins in this town' if you're just going to have assassins show up anyway! I mean, what did this 'detail' do for you? How did it matter? What you're basically saying is "I can plausibly just ignore the consequences of any detail so I can generate the plot I desire." which is exactly MY point, these details don't really mean much....

My point was that the NPC not being able to go get an assassin *at the time*, because there were no assassin's in town and the nearest assassins were days away was not a big deal to me, because assassins could be brought in later if it made sense keeping within the "world building that had been done prior. To some people having world building and maintaining verisimilitude within that structure is a bad thing. To those like myself, it is something desired. The world building defines the setting on a large scale and answers certain questions ahead of time (what is the geography? What is the planar cosmology? Whom are the deities and how active are they (if there are deities)? What is the nature of magic in the world? What are the various nations and cultures available to PCs and what are they like (what are their beliefs and values? What is their government like. What is their technology? what classes/class variants/ subclasses are available)? What are some of the major institutions found in each culture? Whom are some of the major NPCs? What is some local history? Are their any major monsters in the area or other information that a starting player from a specific region or city might have that other starting characters would not?

Now, as for the specific instance with the wizards and assassins, I did not plan to have assassins hired. However, back when the guild was created, it crossed my mind that the head of the guild and the rest of the leadership would be the type to keep tabs on their members and they used the guild rings to track movements and, at times spy on them. When the rogue removed a guild membership ring off the finger of a wizard guild member's corpse and pocketed it, I remembered about the spells on it and the rogue never sold the ring or had it identified. The player kept it in the pouch and forgot about until a year or more later while going through his list of items.

2) The whole thing with the Wizard's Guild would stink of hidden backstory in the sort of games I run. Why is the game all about how this guild is perpetually tracking the party, unless this is somehow central to the agenda being expressed in this specific game. If so, its great, but I would think there would then be more dramatically satisfying elements underpinning it than "oh, this fact I couldn't possibly know was responsible for it." (IE you would have it be a consequence of something a PC did as part of his 'thing' which defines his character, or a choice which grew out of that). If the whole guild thing does NOT involve anything the player's are interested in, then why are they being subjected to it in the first place? I mean, "oh gosh we stole this ring" is pretty thin gruel in my book.

See above. For a year or more, the players (and their characters) had been wondering how they had been tracked. Then one day, the rogue pulled it out and put it on. The druid thought he saw an eye, momentarily, appear in the gem and inquired about it. Upon the rogue telling how it came to be in his position, the druid cast identify on the ring(back in 3e, identify was one of the arcane spells that l had put on a variant druid spell list). The rogue got a stern lecture from the druid and then the party about giving rings and other items found to the druid- especially, if taken off dead wizards.

The players themselves loved how they had been tracked, how it made sense, and how the guild, probably, would have forgotten about them much earlier in the campaign if the rogue had not taken the ring).

Would I have thought of a guild ring if I had not created the guild prior to play and had to improvise the guilds creation on the spot? Probably not. Most of that initial adventure was improvised, but the groundwork was laid out with information I had determined back when coming up with the various nations, their cultures (government, beliefs, value, etc.), major institutions, major npcs, local histories,
etc.

Now, that all stated, while I like to engage in some world building to help define the world, it cultures, etc., I personally don't take it to the Tolkien level. I want to answer basic questions about the world, define how things work (e.g., cosmology, magic), and give players the available races, nations and cultural information that grounds the characters into the setting (including what classes, class variants, and or subclasses are restricted to specific cultures). This information is not all provided at once. Some is information is reserved until a player chooses a specific race, culture or even class.
The same information also helps me to improvise when my players go in completely different directions or pursue a different goal mid adventure. It also helps when they present opportunity for side adventures (e.g., complaining about being unsuccessful in getting the druid laid in the previous city...just as they are near a fairy forest. This led to the druid being kidnapped by a fairy and the party trying to rescue him before he either eats or drinks anything or becomes amorous with the fairy).