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

[Daniel D. Fox]

This is exactly why I dislike this sort of world building. It almost always comes out as a "Gotcha!" Whether it's a quiz, a puzzle that you could have solved, a plot point that you are expected to figure out, or whatever. The reason these sorts of details are thrown out by world building DMs is so that they can test players to see how much they paid attention to the history lesson they received.

If you aren't as interested in the history and culture of their world as they are, then you get punished for it. As a player, I'm NEVER as interested in the history and culture of their world as they are. So, I'm always the one punished.

Granted, but you're not within the demographic of people I'd have playing a D&D game at my table. My players chose me as their DM because they wanted verisimilitude, a rich history and story with action and consequences, and in turn I chose them to play in my game because I know I can craft a game they can throw themselves fully into.

I'm not knocking your style, but Diablo at the table is not the sort of D&D game I prefer as either a player or a DM. And I don't quite understand what's up with the "punishment" thing you're noting. If you're having those sorts of DMs, then find a new group that fits your playstyle.

 

[Barastrondo]

The reason these sorts of details are thrown out by world building DMs is so that they can test players to see how much they paid attention to the history lesson they received.

As a world-builder: nnnnnnno, that's not why they're thrown out. They're thrown out for the sake of illusion and immersion. They are colorful bits that, like bait, might provide story hooks if the players bite. If the players know that there are pseudodragons in a particular wood because they find out in a fashion other than a random encounter, one might want to go find one as a pet. Apart from that, it just tends to make the world more real, in the same sense that you would describe a forest as largely evergreen in cold northern climes, or as you'd describe the nights as getting cold in a desert.

You've moved into "bad GM" behavior patterns, not "world-builder" behavior patterns. There are non-world-building GMs aplenty who will punish players for becoming interested in things other than the Adventure At Hand: but that's because they're also bad GMs, not simply because they choose not to spend time world-building.

 

[alleynbard]

As always, you gotta know your audience. But I've found that for the groups I tend to play with, coming up with extra details is absolutely worth the time: the players require it to feel like actual residents of the world instead of pieces on a game board. Writing 5,000 words on Vilessan opera is certainly going too far, but knowing that opera is a popular medium in the area is useful if the party bard asks "So are there any good shows in town at the moment?"; even more useful if you can ad lib "Sure, there's a pretty well-received comedy opera about three halfling brothers playing." And I have players like that.

I agree with everything you say and I would argue that actually writing the 5,000 words really isn't going too far. If a GM enjoys that aspect of play (I certainly love worldbuilding) then writing that material is satisfying a need.

The real issue comes, as you say, on how that information is presented. If a GM tries to foist all 5,000 words on unwilling players, then that is a problem. Most often, what happens in my games is probably very similar to what happens in yours. For instance, if the players enter a city I usually give a few details on what the city is known for, perhaps no more than a three or four quick facts. If the players push for more on a particular subject I will provide a little more in-depth info. If they really want to learn everything there is to know about the subject I am likely to release my notes, sans any secret info, just so they can read about the subject in their leisure time.

But I need to have some of those notes ready for that eventuality. Perhaps that has everything to do with my group. If I didn't have a group who responded so positively to unique facts, then perhaps my time spent worldbuilding would be reduced. I don't know. I am inclined to believe that the situation has grown from my willingness to produce details about the world, either ahead of time or by ad libbing in game. I provided the environment and the players responded. It is an enjoyable form of game play for us.

And, I must admit, I would never want to run/play in a game that doesn't have at least the opportunity for me to push against the world and have it push back with detail. But I can appreciate others might feel differently.

 

[Scribble]

This is exactly why I dislike this sort of world building. It almost always comes out as a "Gotcha!" Whether it's a quiz, a puzzle that you could have solved, a plot point that you are expected to figure out, or whatever. The reason these sorts of details are thrown out by world building DMs is so that they can test players to see how much they paid attention to the history lesson they received.

If you aren't as interested in the history and culture of their world as they are, then you get punished for it. As a player, I'm NEVER as interested in the history and culture of their world as they are. So, I'm always the one punished.

I don't think this is a poblem with world building so much as a problem with the DM. World Building can add a lot of flair to a campaign, but the DM should never use it to "trick" his players. The DM in your case is doing that, he's simply playing a game of "gotcha" and I find it bad form.

I think a lot of DMs forget that while it's been say 3 months real time since the last time they encountered world element X, it might have only been like a day in game time. So there isn't a reason the character would forget the info that the player forgot. Sometimes the DM should just restate the info.

As for the Orc sign... I prefer this method:

DM: "So, you are walking through the woods when you spot a small pile of rocks colored red, with a skull of a wolf on top of it.

Player: Do we know anything about what this means?

DM: Make a nature, or a history check.

This allows the DM to use his world detail in game, and I've even found players tend to register stuff like that more then if the DM just outright tells them.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

As a world-builder: nnnnnnno, that's not why they're thrown out. They're thrown out for the sake of illusion and immersion. They are colorful bits that, like bait, might provide story hooks if the players bite. If the players know that there are pseudodragons in a particular wood because they find out in a fashion other than a random encounter, one might want to go find one as a pet. Apart from that, it just tends to make the world more real, in the same sense that you would describe a forest as largely evergreen in cold northern climes, or as you'd describe the nights as getting cold in a desert.

You've moved into "bad GM" behavior patterns, not "world-builder" behavior patterns. There are non-world-building GMs aplenty who will punish players for becoming interested in things other than the Adventure At Hand: but that's because they're also bad GMs, not simply because they choose not to spend time world-building.

THIS.

 

[TwinBahamut]

The exact level of detail thats needed to drive this interest/reward system will vary to taste. The world needs enough detail to maintain player interest but too much can cause it to be lost again.

Honestly, I think talking about "level of detail" misses the main point of this discussion.

What Hussar has been arguing for (which seems to be my way of doing things, since he agrees with me so much) has nothing to do with level of detail. It is simply the timing of the creation of detail, and the factors that govern which details you include.

You can create a highly detailed setting before ever starting the campaign, or you can create one in the process of playing the campaign. There is no inherent difference in the amount of detail the players encounter in one strategy or another. You do not necessarily get more relevant detail if you build the world first, and you do not have to lose relevant detail by starting the campaign first. Similarly, you do not necessarily get more verisimilitude with the former method.

Overall, I simply have to disagree with anyone who argues that detailed worldbuilding before the start of a campaign actually makes the campaign better, or saves them any work when the campaign actually starts. I don't even agree that it makes any single session more flexible. It is certainly a strategy that works, but it is far from being the only one, and is certainly not the one true best way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ok I can't give XP for this right now, can someone cover me?

I did before you asked.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Overall, I simply have to disagree with anyone who argues that detailed worldbuilding before the start of a campaign actually makes the campaign better, or saves them any work when the campaign actually starts. I don't even agree that it makes any single session more flexible. It is certainly a strategy that works

Care to explain how it is "certainly a strategy that works" if, overall, you disagree that it has any benefits?

 

[Scribble]

Care to explain how it is "certainly a strategy that works" if, overally, you disagree that it has any benefits?

I'm not TB but I think what he's saying is:

Neither strategy is the "best" strategy. If it works for you, it works for you, but it doesn't mean that particular strategy is always going to work for everyone, and is therefore not the ultimate "best" strategy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not TB but I think what he's saying is:

Neither strategy is the "best" strategy. If it works for you, it works for you, but it doesn't mean that particular strategy is always going to work for everyone, and is therefore not the ultimate "best" strategy.

That might make sense, were the statement not

I simply have to disagree with anyone who argues that detailed worldbuilding before the start of a campaign actually makes the campaign better, or saves them any work when the campaign actually starts. I don't even agree that it makes any single session more flexible.​

Note, this is not a statement that he disagrees that it is the only way. He disagrees that it "saves them any work when the campaign actually starts" where "them" surely refers to the people making the claim. He then doesn't agree that it makes any single session more flexible.

IOW, if you claim that it helps you, he disagrees.

That is not the same as "Neither strategy is the best strategy", and is directly contradictory to the statement that detailed worldbuiilding is "certainly a strategy that works".

It is similar to saying: "Overall, I disagree that anyone gets benefits from eating carrots. I don't even agree that they have vitamins. Eating carrots is good for you though."


RC