Is "A Wizard Did It" Acceptable Worldbuiling?

[Fauchard1520]

I appreciate a well-thought-out explanation as much as the next gamer. The dungeon was built by such-and-such a person for concrete reasons, and its inhabitants have a reason to live there. That's satisfying worldbuilding. However, I think that phrases like "chaos magic" and "a wizard did it" were invented by GMs tired of sane and orderly dungeons. There's a certain appeal to a funhouse environment with nonsensical inhabitants. A dragon lurks in a tiny broom closet. Doors open for monsters but not PCs. The random marble trap in Dragon's Lair.

My question is this: Do you need backstories and explanations, or are you OK with “a wizard did it?” Do you like dungeons that “make sense,” or are you alright with the occasional bout of silliness? Can both styles exist comfortably within the same campaign, or does an element of nonsense devalue the internal consistency of the setting?

 

[ragr]

I'm firmly in the it's got to make a degree of sense bracket, but I'm not overly fond of silliness in any case. A degree of sense because I think it's unreasonable to require that every aspect of dungeon design should be based around concrete reality. So, for example, if many of the guardians are wearing armour then there needs to be an area or rooms that facilitate repair or manufacture unless there's an outside source, which is then part of the overall story - weapons smuggling from civilisation etc. Strong stories provide good backbone and sometimes the mundane stories are more resonant than the fantastical.

Those kind of details need to have been considered but I'm not overly concerned about a lack of obvious toilet facilities.

 

[Scott Christian]

I not only like dungeons that make sense, but I need them to make sense. At fourteen, I rewrote Keep on the Borderlands because I couldn't understand how all those creatures existed together in the canyons.

This is not to say I have always done a great job at it, nor is it to say I need a backstory on every tree branch. It is to say, that the flow and logic of an environment should make sense. When it doesn't, particularly due to magic (think white dragon cave and its lair effects in a desert environment), it should stand out to players. It should make them think - what the heck?

Traps probably cause me the most consternation. Traps that would kill a drunken rogue coming home from a night at the tavern, in a guild hall that has dozens walk around daily (including new recruits), and is used as actual living space. I. Just. Can't.

 

[reltastic]

For me it's all about the purpose of the dungeon in question.

Barracks, castles, caverns, etc all need to make sense to a degree. They were built for a reason, or they were created and inhabited for a reason. They are usually occupied by creatures that make sense. Wizards didn't do it.

But there are some dungeons, vaults, tombs, etc that can be made by wizards and don't need to be as consistent. I loved Tomb of Annihilation and that style of dungeon as a DM, and the one I'm currently running is in the same vein - however, it's inhabited by creatures that make sense - elementals and constructs that can be controlled and can live for indeterminate amounts. The rooms are puzzle rooms, so the puzzle itself needs a certain logic behind it, even if the idea of a "puzzle dungeon" is pretty silly.

I almost never do joke rooms, though a lot of the rooms lend themselves to some unintentional comedy, which is always welcome at my table.

 

[Mallus]

The trouble with dungeons is they're first and foremost user-facing puzzles. They exist to challenge players. All those tricksy traps and defenses only make sense it that context.

You can give dungeons all sorts of internal logic, justification, and theme, but those are all additional things built around the chassis of their original purpose.

Note that I'm using 'dungeon' to mean the sort of thing I first encountered in old D&D and AD&D tournament modules back in Ye Olde Nineteen Eighties. This doesn't apply to real-world structures adapted to be D&D-esque dungeons.

But to answer the question: I like a little explanation beyond 'a wizard did it' -- unless they really did do it -- but this isn't quite the same thing as 'making sense'.

 

[Hoffmand]

A better story would be the butler did it.

 

[Gradine]

It's a matter of tone. How serious your overall tone is should dictate the amount of verisimilitude in your worldbuilding; the less serious your tone, the more acceptable breaks in immersion are.

 

[atanakar]

D&D dungeons make little sense to me regardless of the explanation. I rarely use them. An escape route out of a fortification. An underground oubliette, jail, torture chamber, natural caves inhabited by creatures, are as far as I go underground. No one is complaining at my table.

 

[billd91]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of "just because wizard". I can accept not every detail having a reason or explanation as long as the broad explanation is reasonable. The players may not know it now, but it becomes something they can potentially learn something about through exploration or research and then the mystery starts becoming understood.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I think it depends on how well the thing that "A wizard did" fits with the rest of the world. If I'm running a grim and sinister Ravenloft campaign and a Roger Rabbit-style toon shows up, that won't work as well as if that same creature appeared in a gonzo post-apocalyptic fantasy world. If it doesn't stand out like a sore thumb, the players are likely enough to nod, accept "a wizard did it," and move on.