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

[Imaro]

...snip

I really don't have a problem with worldbuilding as an activity, and it does add to games. I just don't see it as necessary. It also takes a lot of time.

First, thanks for actually answering the question as opposed to avoiding it or deflecting back at me. Second neither I or anyone else arguing for worldbuilding ever said it was "necessary", as I have said before even a story isn't necessary to just play the game. However you've made a distinction that others such as Hussar have been unable to make for some reason and that is the fact that it can add to the game and isn't necessarily a waste of time.

I've run games like you describe, in fact that's exactly how our C&C game is going right now... but my players know the difference between a world I've fleshed out and one that is being improvised on the fly... they've told me as much. My thing is that if given the time and inclination my worldbuilding adds to the game in a positive manner, whether that is enough to justify the time spent on it is a subjective as opposed to objective thing and hus, IMO, stating worldbuilding is "wankery" or a "time waste" isn't objective truth at all.

 

[Imaro]

This has nothing do so with what I said.

To reiterate, macro-level setting material for it's own sake is unlikely to impact play enough to justify the time and effort many DMs spend on it. But it can be rewarding in itself, even if it is often an inefficient use of prep time in terms of running a game...thus, the "wankery" term. It's best not to fool yourself with regard to it's actual utility in terms of prepping for a game, IMO.

Hey rounser this is a great opinion about why worldbuilding doesn't work for you but really, you should stop stating it in a manner that suggests it's objective truth... when it's not.

 

[Fenes]

Too many try to tell others what's badwrongfun these days. People should start to understand that not everyone has the same taste, and that not everything is a mathematical fact.

 

[Barastrondo]

To reiterate, macro-level setting material for it's own sake is unlikely to impact play enough to justify the time and effort many DMs spend on it. But it can be rewarding in itself, even if it is often an inefficient use of prep time in terms of running a game...thus, the "wankery" term. It's best not to fool yourself with regard to it's actual utility in terms of prepping for a game, IMO.

It really depends on the players. If you have explorer types in the game, who love to see giant maps of the world and all the nations, then the argument that the game doesn't benefit falls short. Similarly, if your players don't care about anything but the next fight, then even giving an adventure's master villain a name is "wankery." The players won't care what his name is or what he's trying to accomplish, only what his stat block is likely to be like and how they can overcome his challenges. You can't really argue what's efficient and inefficient use of prep time without knowing what the players bite at. I've had players who would drive other GMs I've known absolutely nuts because they're in the game for exploration and social interaction first, slaying evil second, and carrying off loot a distant third. If you haven't done enough "wankery," your game isn't that appealing to them.

The thing is, it seems like this whole question hangs on the idea that world-building is somehow "taking away from useful design," and I'm not yet convinced that it is. I tend to see it expressed as another facet of the hobby, like painting miniatures or watching sword-and-sorcery flicks or reading the latest Giant Installment In A Fantasy Dodecalogy or being a player in another game. They're all examples of a person taking some "me time" in the hobby, and I'm not at all convinced that doesn't generally have a beneficial effect on the game. If nothing else, it helps prevent burnout.

 

[Mallus]

All comes back to one of the cardinal rules of gaming: play with people who like what you like.

Or take the players preferences into account when running your setting.

It's really irrelevant how (over) detailed my setting is. What matters is how I run it for a particular group of people. If I bury them in unwanted information then it's a bad thing.

 

[Mallus]

This has nothing do so with what I said.

Hmmm.. did you forget you posted this?

But macro-level wankery is the rule, and yes, it's bizarre (until you consider the psychology behind why that might be).

Yes, world-building aficionado's just might like to play God, just as scrawny/fat IT professionals just might like to play swarthy, powerful men of action, and while it's fair to call both pursuits bizarre, it's also true they form the backbone of this hobby...

To reiterate, macro-level setting material for it's own sake is unlikely to impact play enough to justify the time and effort many DMs spend on it. But it can be rewarding in itself...

That fact that people find it rewarding is the justification.

even if it is often an inefficient use of prep time in terms of running a game...

Adventure prep-time and setting design-time seldom overlap for me. I don't use preplanned campaign arcs. I write adventures --such as they are-- in response to PC actions.

... thus, the "wankery" term.

Nothing wrong with calling world-building wankery. Of course, there's nothing wrong with wankery.

It's best not to fool yourself with regard to it's actual utility in terms of prepping for a game, IMO.

It's useful to me, and the two other co-DM's in our group.

 

[Hussar]

One can do world building by improvisation. Start small, and create what you need - and keep it. Note down what you did, and after the first campaign you have a decent proto-setting. The next campaign can build on that, maybe start in another area, build that up, then tie the two together.

After a few campaigns you'll have a complete setting, with details, and didn't "waste" time doing it.

Yes, absolutely you can do this.

and, I'm going to lump Imaro's post in here too just to answer both of you:

First, thanks for actually answering the question as opposed to avoiding it or deflecting back at me. Second neither I or anyone else arguing for worldbuilding ever said it was "necessary", as I have said before even a story isn't necessary to just play the game. However you've made a distinction that others such as Hussar have been unable to make for some reason and that is the fact that it can add to the game and isn't necessarily a waste of time.

I've run games like you describe, in fact that's exactly how our C&C game is going right now... but my players know the difference between a world I've fleshed out and one that is being improvised on the fly... they've told me as much. My thing is that if given the time and inclination my worldbuilding adds to the game in a positive manner, whether that is enough to justify the time spent on it is a subjective as opposed to objective thing and hus, IMO, stating worldbuilding is "wankery" or a "time waste" isn't objective truth at all.

Hang on. I've repeatedly said that you can world build and create good games. I've stated that numerous times IN THIS THREAD. Of course you can build a campaign this way. Hell, every friggin' DM for years has been doing it this way. I never, ever said that you couldn't do it.

What I did say is that IMO, your time would be better served NOT DOING IT THAT WAY. That doesn't mean that you can't, or that it will not work, or that it is always bad or anything like that.

What I am saying is that there might be a better way of doing it. I never said any badwrongfun stuff. You guys added all that yourselves. Ok, I did use the term setting wankery in the original post that sparked all this, and I came on too strong, but, jeez, get over it. I've repeatedly stated that I appreciate the work that goes into world building and that it can be a fantastic thing.

I just don't like the fact that it pretty much gets touted as the single best way of doing it. Heck, the 3e DMG puts it as the first step in campaign building. I'm pretty sure the other DMG's do as well. I disagree with this.

Imaro, let me ask you a question then. You said that you are going to take 6 months developing your game world. Not that you have to, but you are going to. If your game, for whatever reason, died tomorrow, would you feel comfortable starting that campaign next week? If not, how long would it be before you would feel comfortable starting to write adventures for that campaign world?

 

[Hussar]

For those keeping score at home, here's a selection of my own posts, pointing out that I wasn't just screaming from the mountaintops that world building is bad.

This is a very different approach than what has traditionally been advocated by a great number of people in the hobby. Heck, even the various Dungeon Master Guides include fairly lengthy sections on world building. The typical advice is either top down or bottom up, but, in the end it's generally, "build the setting first, then figure out what kind of adventures go on in that setting."

I really do disagree with that approach. I think a far better approach, and much better advice to new DM's out there, is "start with a story. Think about what events would be important to that story. Then, start building from there." Even if the story is just, "Go out and see what's over that next hill", it's better to start from the story angle than to design the other side of the hill and then work backwards.

I fully endorse this. And thank you for toning down my rhetoric.
/snip

Not that world building is necessarily bad. And, sorry Imaro, reading my own posts, I can see why you would think that I think that. I have no real beef with world building in and of itself. I just think that its place in campaign creation has been too ... errr ... pronounced over the years. It has been enshrined into the collective minds of gamers and I really question whether it should be.

/snip
Look, maybe I'm stating it too strongly, that's fine. I'm just trying to point out that the common wisdom that you have to do this sort of thing isn't quite (IMNSHO) true. That you don't need to spend that much time doing world building before you start a campaign. That the time you spend world building might be better spent (see the conditional there? Everyone happy) in detailing the events of the campaign, rather than on detailing elements that only the DM sees.

/snip

I see what you're saying and by and large I agree. My personal problem, and i realize that this drum is getting a bit worn is that folding world building in with setting construction makes setting meaningless. To me, world building is an activity that is divorced from plot. To me, world building is an activity which is pursued for its own end and its own goals - specifically to create in as great of detail as possible, an imaginary world.

Again, I think this is probably why we're having such a difficulty coming to a consensus because I think a lot of people in this thread are not making a distinction between world building and setting building.

So, if I accept your definition of world building as any activity related to the creation of setting, then yes, we are in 100% agreement.

/snip
Again, I'm not saying world building is bad. It's not. It can be tons of fun. I just believe that a DM's efforts could be better directed. That spending time and effort detailing elements on the off chance that the players might go somewhere is doing a disservice to the ongoing campaign. And I think the advice that is typically served up to new DM's is also misleading. It places too much emphasis on world building and not enough on focusing on campaign.

/snip

I am absolutely in awe of people who do create these huge intricate worlds. Fargoth, for example, is the result of god knows how many hundreds, if not thousands of man hours of work. That's damn impressive. But, in the end, to me it's a ship in a bottle. It's the model train set. It's the Death Star made of Lego. Very, very impressive, wonderful work, but, ultimately just something that you look at.

Now, I realize that there are different opinions out there. And, regardless of my over the top statements earlier, I can certainly appreciate the work and effort that goes into them. I'm simply trying to say that there might, maybe, be a better way.

Phew, just went through my posts in this thread. Except for a brief tangent on the comparative value of completely disconnected random events in a campaign, I've added a disclaimer onto almost every single one of my posts stating that I do NOT think world building is the worst thing you could ever do. I actually do say that world building does work several times.

That you, Imaro, choose to pick and choose what points to respond to is not my fault. I've repeatedly stated that world building is fine. I've also repeatedly stated that IN MY OPINION the game would be better served to pull back on world building and focus more attention on campaign and story.

What I have not stated, ever, in this thread, is that world building is absolutely a bad thing and no one should ever do it.

 

[Ourph]

I will disagree here, the more work I put into worldbuilding the better my chances are that #2 becomes #1. As an example, let's say in Gulmenghast the PC's are investigating a rash of kidnappings, now somehow they get it in to their head that one of the Hundred Gods Cults is responsible... perhaps some of the Gray Man's followers. Now if I've detailed the ward of Godshome and the temples within it (including the Grey Man's) then #2 is #1.

OK, if we're talking about that level of detail, then yes, I agree. If you're shooting for creating maps and encounter keys for every building (or even every major building) in your city before you start the campaign, then you'll be one very prepared DM. I wish you luck in getting to that point over the next 6 months.

I've run games like you describe, in fact that's exactly how our C&C game is going right now... but my players know the difference between a world I've fleshed out and one that is being improvised on the fly... they've told me as much. My thing is that if given the time and inclination my worldbuilding adds to the game in a positive manner

My "problem" with worldbuilding (quotes because this is a personal thing, not meant to be read as a universal truth) is that my experience is pretty much the exact opposite of what you're describing. I find that in doing a lot of background work I usually wind up doing MORE improv at the table. Part of this is because if I'm doing more background work, it's because I'm trying to run a more sandbox style campaign and the PCs are choosing their own path from scratch rather than choosing from paths that I've given them. That's automatically going to lead to more improvisation.

I also feel like I have to do more improvisation in order to keep the encounter areas from seeming shallow. Taking your example of the Gray Man's temple. If I were running that game and prepping for it as you describe, the temple would contain enough information for me to present a few encounters that would keep the PCs entertained, but it wouldn't have been developed originally to fit into whatever events are currently going on in the game and those kind of intricate plot tie-ins are things that I have difficulty coming up with off-the-cuff, so they would end up not being included. Whereas, if the Gray Man's temple was part of a more structured campaign that I developed specifically for that night's gaming session, I'd have plenty of time to fill it with significant encounters, items and events that tie into the ongoing campaign and give the players a lot to think about, give me plenty of seeds for future adventure hooks and campaign events and make the location really feel like it is an integral part of the world that the PCs have been exploring. I don't feel like I can do as good a job of that off-the-cuff as I can with a week or so to prepare specifically for that adventure beforehand.

If others can do that easily, that's great. But I find that extensive worldbuilding in the context of a sandbox campaign tends to work against providing what I consider a good game, for me.

 

[Imaro]

For those keeping score at home, here's a selection of my own posts, pointing out that I wasn't just screaming from the mountaintops that world building is bad.

Phew, just went through my posts in this thread. Except for a brief tangent on the comparative value of completely disconnected random events in a campaign, I've added a disclaimer onto almost every single one of my posts stating that I do NOT think world building is the worst thing you could ever do. I actually do say that world building does work several times.

That you, Imaro, choose to pick and choose what points to respond to is not my fault. I've repeatedly stated that world building is fine. I've also repeatedly stated that IN MY OPINION the game would be better served to pull back on world building and focus more attention on campaign and story.

What I have not stated, ever, in this thread, is that world building is absolutely a bad thing and no one should ever do it.

And when have I ever attributed the statement that "world building is absolutely a bad thing and no one should ever do it." to you, Hussar? What I have argued against are your generalizations of it being a waste of time, or that campaigns should be plot-based and that worldbuilding is necessarily divorced from the act of actually playing the game.

I mean it's pretty easy to make it seem like you said whatever you want when you're selectively cutting and pasting your comments... Yeah, I noticed all the snips and parts that were left out. I mean really are you honestly trying to play the victim role now? Your posts are mostly like the person who apologizes by stating... "I'm so sorry you feel that way.".

One minute you claim that worldbuilding isn't the worst thing you could do (which with the multitude of bad DM'ing moves one could make isn't saying much) but then in the same paragraph have no problem claiming it's a disservice to one's campaign, a time waste, or only something to look at (and here I thought it was something for my players to interact with). But you're right none of these statements give the impression or insinuation that worldbuilding is a bad thing.