D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[clearstream]

Ok, so we're all in agreement that D&D is not a particularly good system for world building right? That world building is done alongside the system, not using the system? Have we hit a point of agreement?

I think that if we say "system" we mean rules, tables, guidelines and components. For example, world building "systems" (such as Traveller's) present a collection of tables for generating stats such as population, tech level and so forth. Each world ended up with a profile (UPP). We used those to create High Guard / Trillion Credit Squadron campaigns back in the day. It is a simple statement of fact that D&D contains world building tables e.g. the Random Settlements tables. However, I would say that it doesn't contain all the tables and eager world builder might desire. A world also needs rules, such as for war or trade. D&D offers only the UA Battle System and is silent on how the forces are constructed, or supported. Chivalry and Sorcery had extensive rules for that. World builders benefit from guidelines about things from pantheons to languages. D&D includes those although perhaps systems like Empire of the Petal Throne had more to offer for languages. I don't recall Traveller having much on that. Finally, a world needs to be populated with people and things. All of the systems mentioned contain detail and variety for people and things. For example, the MM gives us numerous creatures with contexts that are quite usable. I could agree that D&D does not offer complete support for world building, but what it does offer is at a reasonable degree of quality. I disagree that world-building doesn't use the system: rather that comes from an apparent blindness to the extent that D&D worlds perforce integrate the system!

Because if that's true, then going back to the original point that started this tangent, arguing world building effects caused by the mechanics is pointless. Since world building is done without referencing the actual mechanics, the reverse is also true.

When we create a D&D world we constantly reference the mechanics. We put mechanically detailed people and creatures into that world. We shape the world to reflect the available spells and powers. Should we construct our world without reference to the mechanics of the game we are playing, then we really are doing that task badly. Sure, if you then wanted to argue that given world building done badly, integrating effects caused by the mechanics is pointless - then we're forced to agree with that because we built our conclusion into our premise. A conclusion that is of course especially spurious given that we probably agree that a world building system is one that offers and integrates more mechanics, not fewer.

So, while the PC's might face 3 deadly encounters per day, this has ZERO impact on the larger world. Because the system is concerned with the PC's and how they go on adventures. The system is not concerned with making your world "work".

The system constantly attempts to offer mechanical compromises that help make your world work. For example, the cycle of rests maps to reducing exhaustion, examining and attuning items, and training and other downtime, that will effect most sentient and many other creatures in the world. Think - why can a creature reduce exhaustion by finishing of a long-rest, if they ingest food and drink? It's all very "meta" really: the mechanics proceed from the fiction and then reflect back upon it. One of the problems with Gritty Realism is then do we only reduce exhaustion once per week? We could say that is a character-only thing, which for me is needlessly jarring. Better I believe to find a mechanic that sustains our world, our game balance, and our diversity of meaningful encounters.

 

[SkidAce]

Just because PC's always manage to find adventures wherever they go, it doesn't follow that the rest of the world has adventures all over the place.

To be fair and honest, I agree with this sentence 100%, and it clears up some of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's reasoning for me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If no one has said it makes a good world building system, then I don't see how anyone would be at odds with what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said. He said it does not make a good world building system. He made the point that the system was designed to build dungeons for PCs to explore and everything else was added to that after the fact. I don't think that assessment is wrong.

I do, as worlds showed up at the same time as the ruleset -- there's a bunch of default assumptions even in OD&D1974 that imply quite a bit about the world it's set in, things like Gods, alignment, equipment (sets pseudo-medieval time period), Vancian magic, etc. Lots of robust worldbuilding exists alongside of those rules, and one of the first things that started appearing were things like the Blackmoor and Greyhawk settings (which developed alongside the rules).

Is D&D incapable of being used to build worlds? No. Is anyone saying that doing so is "badwrongfun"? No. I think the point is that if that's what you want from a system, then D&D yields results that would not be as good as other systems. He cited Traveller as a prime example (I'm not familiar with it myself, so I can't really comment on that). So I think his point was pretty straightforward, and not quite as contentious as some of the replies would indicate.

I don't think we can divorce world-building from D&D. I think it's an essential part of the game. I just think it's something that is done not because of the system, but alongside the system.

I was mistaken about worldbuilding systems in D&D earlier -- I looked too narrowly for a comprehensive system.. Over the editions there have been lots of systems in the game to assist with worldbuilding. 3.x clearly set up rules for how settlements worked, with power bases, population, demographic mixes, and treasure caps. 5e also has rollable tables for settlements. NPCs have had tables for creation. 5e includes Honor mechanics, which directly tie to worldbuilding. So, yeah, there are a number of mechanical systems in place to build worlds. Are they as robust as Traveller's? No, but they exist, and guidelines and suggestions for more are there as well. D&D does include worldbuilding as part of it's system -- the rules do not function without a certain level of worldbuilding underlying them, as outlined in the core assumptions list right at the start of DMG Part 1. What are those assumptions other than worldbuilding?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok, so we're all in agreement that D&D is not a particularly good system for world building right?

No. This is officially disputed by the plethora of interesting and long-lived official and unofficial settings and the multitude of homebrewed campaign worlds.

That world building is done alongside the system, not using the system?

Well, if I roll up a random town or NPC, have I used a system or not?

Have we hit a point of agreement?

Not even close. Perhaps you could limit yourself to saying that D&D does not provide a comprehensive mechanical system for building worlds and we'd have a point of agreement.

Because if that's true, then going back to the original point that started this tangent, arguing world building effects caused by the mechanics is pointless. Since world building is done without referencing the actual mechanics, the reverse is also true.

And here you completely lose it, again. How do I build world without taking the mechanics into account? Let's say I do this, and I say that, in my world, dragons are wimps easily taken out by housecats. I then apply the mechanics and find out that no number of housecats beats a dragon (on account of flying). Huh, seems I've failed at worldbuilding because the concepts I've added in as a core assumption don't work with the game I'm playing there.

Worldbuilding requires adapting to the rules or adapting the rules. You cannot completely separate worldbuilding from the game.

So, while the PC's might face 3 deadly encounters per day, this has ZERO impact on the larger world. Because the system is concerned with the PC's and how they go on adventures. The system is not concerned with making your world "work".

It is concerned with making the base worldbuilding assumptions of the game work, though, as it should, so, again, you're ignoring that there's a baked in worldbuilding to the actual rule set to make it work. Either you deal with the worldbuilding built into the game mechanics (class descriptions, race descriptions, monster descriptions, etc.) or you've made a worldbuilding choice to dump the fluff for something else.

Just because PC's always manage to find adventures wherever they go, it doesn't follow that the rest of the world has adventures all over the place.

A trivial statement, just as correct in it's reverse: just because PC's always manage to find adventures wherever they go, it doesn't follow that no one else does.


EDIT: Backgrounds! Part of character creation that tie into a larger, non-mechanical world to derive mechanical benefits (and non-mechanical benefits like Folk Hero's).

 

[Ovinomancer]

To be fair and honest, I agree with this sentence 100%, and it clears up some of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's reasoning for me.

Because it's a trivially true statement -- of course it doesn't follow. But it also doesn't follow that because adventurers find adventures that no one else does or that those adventures have no outside consequences.

 

[Lanefan]

<<<takes on role of eager trainee world designer>>>

Ok, so we're all in agreement that D&D is not a particularly good system for world building right? That world building is done alongside the system, not using the system? Have we hit a point of agreement?

OK, boss - with you so far!

Because if that's true, then going back to the original point that started this tangent, arguing world building effects caused by the mechanics is pointless. Since world building is done without referencing the actual mechanics, the reverse is also true.

But, er, boss - if we're not referencing the mechanics at all then what are we referencing, and how can we expect the resulting world to maintain any internal logic once it encounters the mechanics of the game?

Internal logic is important, boss - they told me that in class yesterday.

So, while the PC's might face 3 deadly encounters per day, this has ZERO impact on the larger world. Because the system is concerned with the PC's and how they go on adventures. The system is not concerned with making your world "work".

OK, but the PCs are part of that world, aren't they? And if there's deadly encounters wherever they go, that means there's deadly encounters wherever they don't go too...because who knows, they might suddenly go there tomorrow and those deadly encounters have to be there waiting for them. Right, boss?

So who handles all those deadly encounters in places where the PCs don't go, but might go? Other adventurers? The local commoners? Or do the deadly encounters just fight each other and ignore the rest?

Just because PC's always manage to find adventures wherever they go, it doesn't follow that the rest of the world has adventures all over the place.

But...but...boss, that takes the internal logic Ms. Weeble talked about in class and twists it into a pretzel! What you're saying is that instead of a consistent internal logic, the logic has to bend itself around the presence of the PCs wherever they are - which makes the PCs all special snowflakey and stuff, which just isn't right.

And what happens when there's lots of PCs - you know, the sort of big sprawling campaign where everyone has ten characters all in different parties, and those parties are spread out all over half the game world? Now even by your own reasoning you've got deadly encounters happening everywhere all the time.

It must really suck to be a peasant in a world like that, huh boss.

<<<comes back out of character>>>

Lan-"'Chief, I didn't get part of that.' "Oh? What part didn't you get?' 'The part that came after originally posted by'"-efan

 

[Satyrn]

Apparently so does everyone else who has responded to you.

OTOH, there ARE systems out there that are very much grounded in a world building approach. Traveller, GURPS, HARN, Battletech, just to name a few off the top of my head. But, as soon as you try applying D&D mechanics to an actual world, it falls apart.

Well then stop casting disintegrate.

 

[Satyrn]

So, while the PC's might face 3 deadly encounters per day, this has ZERO impact on the larger world.

Just because PC's always manage to find adventures wherever they go, it doesn't follow that the rest of the world has adventures all over the place.

That kind of logic is perfectly reasonable, of course, though that never helped during the edition war.

I know, eh. I faced a dozen deadly encounters every day during that war, and I wasn't even adventuring here in ENWorld.

 

[Hussar]

<<<takes on role of eager trainee world designer>>>

OK, boss - with you so far!

But, er, boss - if we're not referencing the mechanics at all then what are we referencing, and how can we expect the resulting world to maintain any internal logic once it encounters the mechanics of the game?

Internal logic is important, boss - they told me that in class yesterday.

Because virtually all game worlds are inherently illogical? Because there are pretty much no D&D game worlds that hold up under any serious degree of scrutiny. Certainly no published ones. You can poke GIANT holes in the logic of pretty much any game world with little effort.

Mostly because people really don't care that much.

OK, but the PCs are part of that world, aren't they? And if there's deadly encounters wherever they go, that means there's deadly encounters wherever they don't go too...because who knows, they might suddenly go there tomorrow and those deadly encounters have to be there waiting for them. Right, boss?

So who handles all those deadly encounters in places where the PCs don't go, but might go? Other adventurers? The local commoners? Or do the deadly encounters just fight each other and ignore the rest?

Nope. There are no deadly encounters wherever they don't go because wherever they don't go doesn't actually matter. No one actually uses their random encounter tables for areas where the PC's aren't. Do you actually roll random encounters for EVERY single NPC EVERY single day? No, of course not. So, any NPC's and any areas that aren't being engaged by the PC's are not actually covered by the mechanics in any way, shape or form.

But...but...boss, that takes the internal logic Ms. Weeble talked about in class and twists it into a pretzel! What you're saying is that instead of a consistent internal logic, the logic has to bend itself around the presence of the PCs wherever they are - which makes the PCs all special snowflakey and stuff, which just isn't right.

Of course they are. There's no avoiding that. Again, are you running thousands of NPC's every single day to determine what happens in your game world outside of where the PC's are? No, of course not. So, the mechanics only apply where the PC's are and what they are doing.

And what happens when there's lots of PCs - you know, the sort of big sprawling campaign where everyone has ten characters all in different parties, and those parties are spread out all over half the game world? Now even by your own reasoning you've got deadly encounters happening everywhere all the time.

It must really suck to be a peasant in a world like that, huh boss.

Even in such a campaign, you're still only talking about the mechanics of the game actually applying to an easily ignorable rounding error of the population. A tiny, tiny percentage. The rest of the world doesn't care or notice the existence of these PC's. Well, until they do something big enough to be noticed, I suppose, but, not that many campaigns feature PC's becoming gods.

Even though you have deadly encounters going on in 10 different locations, you still have the out 99.999% of the game world where mechanics have ZERO to do with anything.

<<<comes back out of character>>>

Lan-"'Chief, I didn't get part of that.' "Oh? What part didn't you get?' 'The part that came after originally posted by'"-efan

But it is funny.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I do, as worlds showed up at the same time as the ruleset -- there's a bunch of default assumptions even in OD&D1974 that imply quite a bit about the world it's set in, things like Gods, alignment, equipment (sets pseudo-medieval time period), Vancian magic, etc. Lots of robust worldbuilding exists alongside of those rules, and one of the first things that started appearing were things like the Blackmoor and Greyhawk settings (which developed alongside the rules).



I was mistaken about worldbuilding systems in D&D earlier -- I looked too narrowly for a comprehensive system.. Over the editions there have been lots of systems in the game to assist with worldbuilding. 3.x clearly set up rules for how settlements worked, with power bases, population, demographic mixes, and treasure caps. 5e also has rollable tables for settlements. NPCs have had tables for creation. 5e includes Honor mechanics, which directly tie to worldbuilding. So, yeah, there are a number of mechanical systems in place to build worlds. Are they as robust as Traveller's? No, but they exist, and guidelines and suggestions for more are there as well. D&D does include worldbuilding as part of it's system -- the rules do not function without a certain level of worldbuilding underlying them, as outlined in the core assumptions list right at the start of DMG Part 1. What are those assumptions other than worldbuilding?

That's all fine.

But if someone says bananas are a better snack than granola bars, you shouldn't take that to mean that they are saying granola bars don't exist.

It's a silly analogy, but I'm reasonably sure we're not really going to see eye to eye on this.

I think world building is integral to D&D or any other RPG. But I think it's something done more with the imagination than with any system or rules within the D&D game. Excepting perhaps the general sort of advice suitable for any RPG or other creative endeavor.

A random government table? Roll an 8 and it's a monarchy!!! I don't see that as much of a worldbuilding tool.