Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Raven Crowking]

And that's my point in a nutshell. If an element requires you to change the module in order to make it relevant then it stands to reason that that element wasn't relevant beforehand. As Isle of Dread stands, as written, there is no chance of the Five Shires appearing anywhere in the module. The people, culture and geography of the Five Shires isn't going to come into play without some major rewriting. It is superfluous.

Explain how that differs from the map in White Plume Mountain.

My point is, and will continue to be, that you can pretty much skip Chapter 6 in the DMG and have a good campaign. That you can build a complete campaign without dealing with most of the world building elements detailed in Chapter 6.

Heck, Dungeon does it every single month. Every month we get modules (or adventures) that have little or no world building. They are, to use RC's definition, so generic that we can't call them world building. Random town faces humanoid threat and turns to the nameless heroes to save them is a pretty darn common adventure.

Where do you find the information to build that random town?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Guys I live on the other side of the world from you all. Some of us DO actually have to work from time to time.

First off, let me say that the post I am now quoting from makes more sense, to me, than several of the past posts.

Rounser and I have pretty much identical points of view AFAIK. We're both saying that setting construction beyond what is dictated by the adventure at hand is mostly unnecessary. If it's needed by the adventure, then by all means do it. If it's not, then don't bother. It adds a lot less to the game than you think.

Mind if I pare it down to here to work with?

I would suggest the following:

(1) Something like an Adventure Path can only exist by broadening you horizons to encompasse more than the adventure at hand; one needs to consider the future.

(2) It is quite possible for someone to "bother" doing something for his own benefit, rather than for that of his players, and this is a completely legitimate use of time.

(3) Some people have had different experiences than "It adds a lot less to the game than you think".

(4) D&D can be inherently limiting, where what is prepared becomes what is possible. The more one prepares, including things beyond the adventure at hand, the more becomes possible.

EDIT: BTW, does that mean that you are no longer arguing that worldbuilding requires creating an entire world (i.e., argument by scale) and only arguing on the basis of utility? If that is the case, I think your position and rounser's are much closer than I'd say they were before.

RC

 

[Hussar]

Explain how that differs from the map in White Plume Mountain.

Umm, scale? A single word on the top of a map vs a fairly significant portion of the pagecount of a module? Y'know, pretty much exactly what I've been talking about?

Where do you find the information to build that random town?

Generating Towns Chapter 4 - Adventures (Page 137, 3rd Edition DMG)

Look, we've pretty much always agreed on the definition of setting. Setting is where the plot happens. Now, in RPG's we don't have plot, but we do have a pretty decent analogue in adventures. It's not too far of a stretch to say that in RPG's, setting is where the adventure happens.

Adventures happen in towns. Towns have a direct impact on adventures even if they aren't directly linked - for example, is the town big enough to have a cleric that can Raise dead. In RTTTOEE, Hommlet plays a pretty small role in the overall adventure, but, it's impact is felt throughout the adventure since that's the safe port for the party. You could run RTTTOEE without Hommlet, but, it would be extremely difficult.

Thus, the rules for creating a specific town are included, not in the World Building section of Chapter 6, but, in Chapter 4 because towns (and by town, I don't just mean a settlement with 901-5000 people) have direct impact upon adventure.

If we take a Chapter 6 approach to towns, then we have to go through things like history, background, economy, ecology, etc. Some of that might come into play, but, probably a lot of it won't. Most people don't care that Lord Muckhigh founded the town 150 years ago unless, of course, that impacts the adventure.

The background story of Sasserine found in Dungeon is a pretty good example of Chapter 6 approach. It's a fun story. Interesting. And pretty much has no relation to the adventure path. That the town was founded by a priest of a particular faith doesn't appear in any of the adventures. Is it world building? I think we'd all call that world buiding. Is it indulgent? Pretty much. It's not terribly important and removing that page from the magazine would have little to no impact upon the adventure.

Can it be made to be relevant? Quite possibly. Is it relevant as written? Nope.

 

[Hussar]

EDIT: BTW, does that mean that you are no longer arguing that worldbuilding requires creating an entire world (i.e., argument by scale) and only arguing on the basis of utility? If that is the case, I think your position and rounser's are much closer than I'd say they were before.

I never, ever stated that world building requires the creation of an entire world. What I stated was that the goal of world building was to create an entire world. How close you approach that goal will vary, but, in the end, when you world build, that has to be the ultimate goal.

Setting's goal is to simply act as a place for the plot (or the adventure).

You guys are the ones stating that world building requires building an entire world. I never stated that, or if I did, it's not what I meant. World building, as an activity, has as its goal, the idea of creating an entire place. With that as a goal, then elements like history become very important. You cannot have a world without history.

You can have a setting without history though. Keep on the Borderlands has little to no history.

World building concerns itself with all sorts of questions that setting doesn't. I used the example of glaciation to create a hill. From a setting point of view, we just need a hill and poof, the hill is there. If it needs to be a specific sort of hill (Hey, I'm not a geographer, what do I know?) then it is so. From a world building perspective though, we have to question why that hill is there. What forces acted upon our world to put that hill there. What is the hill's history? Who did things upon that hill? What impact has that hill had before now?

World building is never complete. It cannot be, even with the world's largest library. There is always more gaps to fill in. When the goal is to create a whole world, whether you start from a single village or from the first word of the creator, you can never be finished.

Setting, specifically Chapter 4 style setting, couldn't care less. It's not important who did what on that hill unless it affects the adventure in some way. Adding in halfling cannibal ceremonies on the hill could be a good way to add atmosphere, depending on what you are going for. But, I'm willing to think that this is a bit closer to the indulgent end of the scale than the necessary one.

So, to answer your question directly, I would say that you've misinterpreted what I've said. World building doesn't require a finished product. However, the goal of world building is a whole world in as much detail as possible. That that goal is not really attainable isn't important. It's still the goal.

 

[Darth Shoju]

The background story of Sasserine found in Dungeon is a pretty good example of Chapter 6 approach. It's a fun story. Interesting. And pretty much has no relation to the adventure path. That the town was founded by a priest of a particular faith doesn't appear in any of the adventures. Is it world building? I think we'd all call that world buiding. Is it indulgent? Pretty much. It's not terribly important and removing that page from the magazine would have little to no impact upon the adventure.

Can it be made to be relevant? Quite possibly. Is it relevant as written? Nope.

All of this really hinges on what your goal is in playing D&D. If your goal is to have fun (which I'm thinking is the goal of most who play), then the priority of setting over adventure or vice versa is irrelevant. "Fun" is totally dependent on the individual. As KM pointed out, he and his group have fun without preparing either settings *or* adventures. If your point is that you don't *need* to "worldbuild" to have a fun D&D campaign then I'd have to counter that you don't *need* to build adventures to have fun either. What you need to do is whatever is required for the members of the group to enjoy themselves.

However, (and I've been avoiding this for fear of opening a new can of worms) it can be argued that detailing information that isn't used in the events of the adventure brings more depth to the campaign. Using the example quoted, knowing that the town was founded by a priest gives character to that settlement (although I have to admit to not being familiar with the source of your example). It can explain why there is a statue of the guy in the town square. It can explain why the townspeople only tolerate their founding religion and no others. It can explain why PC priests of that religion can claim shelter from any townsperson. These are details that make the town come alive. Will they have any bearing on the dungeon you are about to clear out? Probably not. Could you have had *fun* just clearing the dungeon without putting any detail into the nearby town? Yup, but as I outlined above that isn't really saying anything new. Can you say that the town I just outlined has the same depth as one where all you know is what level of priest is in it and what the max sell price of magic items is? While I'd say that the latter information is important, you can also just pull that from the DMG when you need it. I'd also say that the latter example isn't as deep as the former.

I guess that my point is that "what is fun" is hard (if not impossible) to quantify, while depth is a little easier to measure. However, I'd also say that depth can be fun, but fun isn't necessarily dependent on depth.

 

[Darth Shoju]

So, to answer your question directly, I would say that you've misinterpreted what I've said. World building doesn't require a finished product. However, the goal of world building is a whole world in as much detail as possible. That that goal is not really attainable isn't important. It's still the goal.

If that is truly what you are claiming worldbuilding to be, then I really do think you are operating on your own definition here. It certainly doesn't match the definition I found in my 3.5 ed DMG:

The definition of a campaign:

"A campaign is composed of a series of adventures, the nonplayer characters (NPCs) involved in those adventures, and the events surrounding everything that happens in those adventures." (DMG, p. 129)

The definition of a world:

"A world is a fictional place in which a campaign is set. It's also often called a campaign setting." (DMG, p. 129)

"A campaign first requires a world. A 'world' is a consistent environment for the campaign." (DMG, p. 129)

On page 135, under the "World-Building" section, they provide two methods of "world-building": "Inside Out: Start with a small area and build outward...Expand slowly and only as needed." (emphasis mine) and "Outside In: Start with the big picture-draw a map of an entire continent or a portion thereof."

Since their advice on world-building explicitly states a method of not making more than you need, I'd have to conclude that their definition of world-building does not include the motive of ultimately creating a whole world in as much detail as possible.

If we are only going to go with your own definition then yes, *that* version of worldbuilding is not only unnecessary but it is futile. But frankly I see that as a non-argument.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I never, ever stated that world building requires the creation of an entire world. What I stated was that the goal of world building was to create an entire world. How close you approach that goal will vary, but, in the end, when you world build, that has to be the ultimate goal.

OK, let's say that you never intended to state that world building requires the creation of an entire world, but merely the goal of creating an entire world.

How does that mesh with Bottom-Up Worldbuilding? There the goal is clearly not to create an entire world, but only so much of the world as appears necessary to the creator. Should I snag that quote again?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Umm, scale? A single word on the top of a map vs a fairly significant portion of the pagecount of a module? Y'know, pretty much exactly what I've been talking about?

OK, so that map takes up an entire page. If I used that page instead to describe the geography and inhabitants around WPM instead, would it make a difference? Would it still be setting? Would it become worldbuilding?

Look, we've pretty much always agreed on the definition of setting. Setting is where the plot happens. Now, in RPG's we don't have plot, but we do have a pretty decent analogue in adventures. It's not too far of a stretch to say that in RPG's, setting is where the adventure happens.

Can we say "Setting is the backdrop to the action"? I am not certain that all setting is "where" though I pretty much agree with you. I also think that some character creation might be setting, and some setting creation might turn out to be unexpected character creation or prop creation.

You know what? I don't have my DMG on me here. Can you give me the headings for that chapter?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Note, most people don't define adventures as only what happens during a game session. I've seen most people say that they create an adventure before a game session. I know for a fact that RC has done so on these boards. So, it's pretty strange to start defining adventure as solely what occurs during play.

Sure.

For example, in "Heather's First Adventure" I put together a railroad in order to illustrate play. However, for the most part, "putting together an adventure" is usually composed of:

(1) Putting together an adventure setting,
(2) Statting up the potential adversaries,
(3) Devising events,
(4) Devising the plots/motivations of NPCs, and
(5) Devising actual potential encounters.

Note that a lot of that can contain worldbuilding elements.

But you are correct. "Creating an adventure" is a sloppy shorthand that doesn't hold up when compared to what is actually being done. This is probably why I've titled threads "Some Cavern Encounters" instead of "A Cavern Adventure".

"Creating Potential Story Elements" might be a better term. I think this applies, btw, to open-ended structures like the WLD, too. The module provides a lot of story elements, but it doesn't proved an "adventure" per se.

 

[gizmo33]

How you get to the Isle of Dread isn't included in the adventure, that is correct. However, it also doesn't matter within the context of the adventure as well. Very little, if anything actually changes if the party teleports to the island, sails a ship or arrives upon the backs of rocs. The adventure doesn't change. You can run the module in identical ways in any case.

This doesn't make any sense to me at all. What can you possibly mean by "adventure"? For example - Arriving on the backs of rocs would probably attract a lot of attention, meaning that the initial encounters would be different than if the PCs snuck onto the island invisibly.

DnD doesn't work by just reading sections of a written module outloud and rolling dice. It works by interpreting information and presenting it to the players in ways the module doesn't cover. Isn't that part of the adventure?

It's not about making what you call "significant changes". Those "changes" are actually the required additions to the material that it was assumed DMs would make (I refer to the advice in the intro to the KotB).

We were close to some sort of agreement with your "spectrum" analogy - where did that go? The Five Shires information is less likely to be useful than details on encounter area 2B - at least that's how I understand your "spectrum" theory. And yet that goes completely out the window when you revert back to the extremist black-and-white language of Five Shires info being totally irrelevant.