Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[gizmo33]

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.

Hommlet details every single farmer, pet dog, and hidden gold piece in the village. This whole time AFAICT you've suggested that good adventure material is immediately relevant - I have no idea how details on how many hitpoints a peaceful farmer has or where he hides his gold is relevant to describing something that's suppose to be a safe port (which it's not really, but that's another story). It seemed pretty clear to me that module writers assumed that their creations would be used in ways they didn't anticipate - Keep on the Borderlands (as an intro module) bothers to say this explicitly. Are you suggesting that module T1 is a good example, or bad example of what you're talking about?

Oh - and Hommlet's impact is not necessarily felt through the adventure (if by that you mean the moathouse) any more than the Five Shires impact is felt in the Isle of Dread. Whatever connection is there is largely a creation of the DM - not the material as written. I've run the Moathouse dungeon completely seperate from Hommlet and Greyhawk, there's very little explicit connection between the encounters in the dungeon and the surface world - all you need to do is come up with an evil cult to explain the presence of the cleric. And even then, if your players are the kind that "don't care" about who ruled the town 150 years ago, then why would they even care why the cleric is really there?

 

[Raven Crowking]

"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)

So, if we are going by the DMG definition, a world is a fictional place in which a series of adventures, the nonplayer characters (NPCs) involved in those adventures, and the events surrounding everything that happens in those adventures is set.

That sounds to me like creating adventure settings is part of worldbuilding.

Are we still going by the 3.X DMG definitions, or are we now going to change to something new?

Because if we are going by the 3.5 DMG definitions, we can stick a fork in it and call it done. Right? Right?

 

[Rel]

I'm already giving somebody a 3 day ban for needlessly rude posting in this thread. The next person in this thread to earn one will get some multiple of that.

 

[Hussar]

*snip for good points*

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.

Oh hey, look. I'm not saying that setting first doesn't work. Of course it does. Decades of play proves that. The stock method of creating the world first (from either direction) and then crafting adventures in that world is functional. It works.

What I'm trying to suggest here is that you may not have to follow that methodology. Instead of doing to the standard Dungeoncraft approach to building a campaign - where you start with dino island and build up from there, why not just create dino themed adventures? Craft a series of adventures based on a theme and then go back and fill in the holes.

Time and again I bring up examples only to have people tell me that you can look at them a different way. That's true. There's a lot of overlap between what I'm calling setting and world building. Since we're tossing around quotes from the DMG, how about the one from the introduction to world building?

... however you may wish to build your own world. It's a challenging and rewarding task, but, be aware, it can also be a time consuming one.

World building is defined as building your own world. Not just what is needed for the adventures, but, a whole world. When they talk about bottom up they say,

Start out with a small area and build outward... expand outward in all directions so you're ready no matter which way they go. Eventually you will have an entire kingdom developed... Proceed to other neighbouring lands, determining the political situations.

Now, it's true that bottom up is less work intensive than top down. But that's not really what I'm talking about. My point is to completely ignore that part. Block Chapter 6 out of the book entirely.

We have to develop adventures. I'm suggesting that the common method of setting first may be less efficient than adventure first.

Hey, I could be wrong here. I admit that. I'm thinking that it's far more expedient to have a complete campaign first and then go back. But, that's pretty work intensive as well and runs all sorts of risks, like heavy handed railroading. I do realize that.

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. (underline mine)
*snip*

And I agree with this 100%. I have stated repeatedly that there is a huge grey area in the middle of what is absolutely needed and what is completely irrelevant. Realistically, you can't really get away with doing zero world building. You just can't. You have to do some.

What I've been very badly trying to explain is that you can approach it in a different direction. Let the world building elements come out of the adventure, rather than starting with them first. Like Star Trek or pretty much any other long lived series, let the world building elements accrete over time. To continue the analogy, write the Star Trek stories first and then go back and apply any world building that you feel is warranted.

Actually, the TV or movie approach is perhaps closer to what I'm getting at. TV or movies don't have the time to spend on large amounts of exposition detailing the history and other world building goodies that we all love. So, in any given episode of Star Trek, you get snippets of world building, but, not a whole lot at once. In a novel, you can just add page count and go into details that aren't terribly necessary, but, lots of people seem to enjoy.

 

[Hussar]

Gizmo - you are entirely correct btw. Hommlet is a very bad example. It was pretty late when I posted that. My bad. Hommlet and Orlane are both poster children really for excessive world building. Detailing every inhabitant in the town is really just far too much IMNSHO.

Oh - and Hommlet's impact is not necessarily felt through the adventure (if by that you mean the moathouse)

Note, I did specify Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, in which Hommlet does play a pretty big role throughout. Once the players clear out the cultists, Hommlet is meant to be a safe haven and contains the resources needed (mostly) for the players for pretty much the entire module. The cleric can raise dead, there is a potion/scroll seller. There are merchants. Anything beyond those needs, they tell you to head to Verbobonc (sp) and skip over the details.

But, yes, the original Village of Hommlet would be a very good example of going beyond what's needed. Some might even say well beyond what's needed.

You bring up KotB. Look at the Keep. Almost no detailing of the inhabitants of the keep beyond what would most logically interact with the PC's. This is a good example of the approach I'm advocating. It's pretty reasonable to think that the PC's need a bar, an inn, a place to flog treasure and a place to get healed. Adding in the Castelan and some mook guards isn't particulalry needed, but, it's not too far beyond either.

Detailing Pig Farmer #12 is.

It's funny, I got into a discussion here on these boards during one of Quasqueton's module discussions about precisely this. At the time, I advocated the approach taken by Village of Hommlet for exactly the same reasons that you seem to - depth, realism, etc. I've come to realize that perhaps that approach is perhaps in need of a makeover. That putting the adventures first and then worrying about world building is maybe a better approach.

 

[Ourph]

What I'm trying to suggest here is that you may not have to follow that methodology. Instead of doing to the standard Dungeoncraft approach to building a campaign - where you start with dino island and build up from there, why not just create dino themed adventures? Craft a series of adventures based on a theme and then go back and fill in the holes.

I think the problem people see with this approach is simply that not having enough information can be just as limiting as having too much. If a DM planned dino themed adventures on an island and all of a sudden the PCs decide to go do X and X is something that the DM hadn't planned on using as an adventure, then it's very likely the DM has nothing prepared to help him handle X. For some DMs that might be OK, but (IME at least) the vast majority of DMs handle the situation by trying to somehow finagle the "story" so that even attempting to do X first requires that the PCs complete adventure #3, which the DM already had prepared. So while the DM had arranged things so that there is a logical reason to do adventure #3, it still means the PCs don't get to do X, like they wanted.

For example, let's say X is "building a boat and sailing around the island to map it". The DM doesn't have the coastline mapped out or any coastal encounters planned because he's planned only "inland" dino encounters. So he rules that building a boat requires the skills of the local native tribe, who just happen to demand the PCs do "Dino-themed Adventure #3" that the DM already had prepared before they'll lend a hand. I'm not saying it's impossible to wing an exploration of the island's coast, but it's not easy and (again IME) the vast majority of DMs shy away from it. So to me at least the idea of eschewing "world-prep" to focus exclusively on "adventure-prep" reminds me of the old adage about failing to plan being the same as planning to fail.

 

[rounser]

If a DM planned dino themed adventures on an island and all of a sudden the PCs decide to go do X and X is something that the DM hadn't planned on using as an adventure, then it's very likely the DM has nothing prepared to help him handle X.

I think that this is a function of D&D gameworlds being too large for their own good. If 95% of the world doesn't contain adventures to discover, why is it there for the PCs to "wander out of the prepared area" into unless everyone's an improv savant (which they're not)? I suspect that it's for a sense of epic - sprawling empires and thousands of miles of terrain make for a grand idea, but the D&D "gameboard" is probably much more useful if it's smaller...in the same way that traditional D&D conventions have more difficulty handling wilderness as an adventure location than a dungeon.

This is a quantitative versus qualitative scenario - I think a couple of hundred square miles of setting packed to the gills with adventure is far superior to thousands of miles of vacuum, with a few macro level ideas to fill that void, especially as of 3E, when a dozen adventures are enough to catapult PCs to 20th level. What you're proposing is understandable one if you come from the "big big big world" school of campaign design, which is by far the traditional majority approach to the topic, but I'd suggest that this model is flawed as well. Say, half a dozen dungeons and a few event-based adventures and the campaign is done - it really doesn't require much space.

While on the topic: Thunder Rift for 4E default setting!

 

[Hussar]

True, it would require some cooperation on the part of the players. The adventures would have to be structured such that the players actually buy into the theme and don't simply walk away from it to go somewhere else. Although, honestly, I was thinking that you would have a number of side trek adventures on hand for just this occasion.

I guess I really don't think that it's that hard to predict players. If I stick them on the island and they buy into the campaign, it's generally not all that hard to predict what they will do. How they do it may be much more difficult, but the what usually isn't.

I have a 2e book kicking around here somewhere called A Heroes Tale. It's a collection of 10 or so one shot adventures all linked by a common element - the orb of chaos or something like that. The DM is encouraged to simply drop these into his ongoing campaign at various points as a side arc to the main camp. It's a book I really like actually - who'da thunk a 2e module could be good?

That's the approach I'm more thinking of. Not just a single series of one shot adventures, but, a meat and potatoes series of adventures in the main arc - exploring the Dino Island as the main theme - with a number of side threads and one offs that can be dropped in as needed.

But, your point is well taken. If the players really decide to abandon the campaign in favour of what they want to do, then there isn't much to recommend this approach. However, IME, it's not too tricky to drop some signposts on the way to nudge players into directions you want to go.

Note, I'm not talking about locking them down onto rails. But, dropping hooks or other bits that entice the players in various directions. Someone called it shepherding rather than railroading.

 

[Darth Shoju]

World building is defined as building your own world. Not just what is needed for the adventures, but, a whole world.

I don't know if that quote from the DMG equates to building a *whole* world. After all, they define "world" as simply: "...a consistent environment for the campaign." Further, my impression from both approaches they recommend (Inside Out and Outside In) is that regardless of where you start, the farther away from the action you are the less detail you should create. With Inside Out you start detailed and get less so as you move farther away, with Outside In you start vague and drill-down to specifics around where the adventures occur. Neither of those sound like striving to create a *whole* world.

We have to develop adventures. I'm suggesting that the common method of setting first may be less efficient than adventure first.

In theory you don't have to do either. I'd agree though that you'll generally have more luck putting adventure over setting/worldbuilding. But that doesn't make worldbuilding bad or superfluous.

I'm thinking that it's far more expedient to have a complete campaign first and then go back. But, that's pretty work intensive as well and runs all sorts of risks, like heavy handed railroading. I do realize that.

Personally I'd rather have a bunch of low-level adventures prepared in a decent setting. That way you give the players options on where the want to go and you can develop more adventures after they have chosen a path. IMO this is the best way to avoid wasted work and potential railroading.

Let the world building elements come out of the adventure, rather than starting with them first. Like Star Trek or pretty much any other long lived series, let the world building elements accrete over time. To continue the analogy, write the Star Trek stories first and then go back and apply any world building that you feel is warranted.

That certainly is an effective method, but you have to have done a little world-building beforehand to establish that you are playing Star Trek adventures. You have to do enough to establish that setting. One of the issues I've had in this thread is that some people seem to think that even this is too much worldbuilding and is straight-jacketing the types of adventures you can have. I suggest that by not establishing theme or setting in the hopes of being able to do whatever adventure you want, then whatever "setting" results has to be pretty generic and vague by necessity. This point seems to be met with outrage and claims that you don't need worldbuilding to have depth and avoid being generic. But, again, that really hinges on the definition of worldbuilding. Bleh.

 

[Hussar]

Personally I'd rather have a bunch of low-level adventures prepared in a decent setting. That way you give the players options on where the want to go and you can develop more adventures after they have chosen a path. IMO this is the best way to avoid wasted work and potential railroading.

I've done pretty much that approach as well most of the time. The problem, for me, comes not at the beginning, but months down the road as campaign after campaign comes to a stuttering halt. I've had it happen to me as a DM and as a player.

Honestly, the World's Largest Dungeon is the first successful campaign I've run in years. By successful I mean a campaign that had closure instead of simply petering out. I know, for myself, that the strain of keeping ahead of the disaster curve of coming to the session with nothing is a lot of stress.

Having a solid arc with lots of backup relieves a lot of that stress.

but you have to have done a little world-building beforehand to establish that you are playing Star Trek adventures. You have to do enough to establish that setting.

Oh, I agree. You cannot get completely away from world building really, any more than you can completely get away from desserts. You're right. You really do have to do some.

There is a danger here though of conflating theme with setting. Space exploration is a theme. The Trek Universe is the setting. I could come up with a number of adventures based on the theme of space exploration and not refer to the Trek Universe in the slightest. After I have my campaign set, then I can go back and maybe add in some stuff as needed.

This is a quantitative versus qualitative scenario - I think a couple of hundred square miles of setting packed to the gills with adventure is far superior to thousands of miles of vacuum, with a few macro level ideas to fill that void, especially as of 3E, when a dozen adventures are enough to catapult PCs to 20th level

I'm not sure if I agree with this Rounser. Are you saying that smaller settings are inherently better? That I disagree with strongly. There's nothing wrong with the idea of having 500 square miles of action packed locations, so long as you don't mean that they have to be contiguous. A campaign which features travel along a Silk Road style set up will have a huge area from end to end, but, the actual adventure areas will be only as large as they need to be.

Just like in Star Trek where we skip over all that boring travel time between episodes, we can do the same thing in an adventure first campaign.