Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry Imaro. I didn't mean to come off as being elitist. My point is that we've been conditioned for years to think that setting MUST BE DONE. The DMG talks about it, umpteen pages in Dungeon and Dragon talks about it. Thousands of pages of Forgotten Realms material shows it. Popular fantasy does it.

It's not really surprising that everyone buys into this.

Or, possibly, there is a reason that DMG talks about it, umpteen pages in Dungeon and Dragon talk about it, and so on.

What's funny is comments like RC's where doing only the barest amount of setting is A BAD THING. That if you were to focus on adventures and ignore most of the setting stuff, there would be no point in gaming at all.

Heck, RC, didn't you take me to task a few pages back for saying that posters were saying EXACTLY what you just said? Refresh my memory, but I believe that several people told me that NO ONE said that putting setting on the back burner makes for a bad game.

No one that I know of suggests that the adventures shouldn't be created. No one that I know of suggests that it is more important to name the barmaids in the inn than it is to develop the moathouse that the PCs are probably going to loot.

However, this is a very different thing from including "only the barest amount of setting".

Consider it like this, if you will: A story requires both conflict and context. If you only create context without conflict, you'll have a dud. If you only create conflict without context, the conflict is meaningless. In which case, there is no pull to return to the book, or (in the case of an RPG) the table.

So who's being elitist? Me for suggesting that most of the setting work that gets done is superfluous or RC for suggesting that if you don't do a "well developed setting" that it just isn't worth playing?

If that's elitist, then I'm an elitist. I have no interest in bad games.

Of course, the problem now is, what is a "well developed setting"? Is the GDQ series a well developed setting? If I were to play through them as written, would it be a bad experience because of a decided lack of world background?

Again, you conflate "setting" with "world background".

You don't need to know the entire history of Greyhawk in order to run Savage Tide. However, knowing something about the structure of the place where it begins isn't a bad thing. The Isle of Dread, like King Kong, attempts to create a contrast between "civilization" and a "lost world" setting. If you ignore that contrast, it certainly can become a worse experience....unless you replace the thematic elements with something else. And, yes, if you took whiteout to the map in White Plume Mountain and crossed off Dragotha and replaced it with "Here Be Dragyns", it would make for a less satisfying experience.

At least IM(not so)HO.

 

[Hussar]

If that's elitist, then I'm an elitist. I have no interest in bad games.

And, of course, here's the assumption that I've talked about before. That, unless you spend hours developing (or lots of money) some fantasy world, your campaign will be doomed to being a bad game.

I asked a while back, and I think it got lost in the wash, if this is why you, RC, believed that the WLD needed so much work to be playable. See, I finished my WLD campaign. I think we had lots of fun. The fact that my players are interested in coming back to another campaign seems to be an indication that things were not so bad.

Yet, beyond the very bare bones that's included in the WLD, I did pretty much no world building.

I've become fairly convinced that most of what we've bought into is simply clomping nerdism. That the idea that we need all this setting is necessary for a "deep" experience.

Oh, hey, I realize I'm swimming against the current here. There's thousands of pages of world building stuff out there just for D&D, never mind other RPG's. A very large part of the industry is based around the concept that WE MUST HAVE SETTING.

Is it really so hard to believe that perhaps conventional wisdom is mistaken? That a new approach to campaign design, given example very well in things like the Adventure Paths, might just be a better way to go?

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I only want to chime in and say that I think that RC and Hussar can both be correct, depending on the DM. As I said in RC's poll, I think that the amount of development required to have a good game may depend on the DM. For someone like me, more setting detail will enhance the gaming session, because of the amount of improv that I do. So, I would personally fall on RC's side of the argument. That doesn't mean that I can't see that for other DMs, very little setting information is needed, as the session planning will provide plenty of detail for a good game.

 

[Hussar]

I only want to chime in and say that I think that RC and Hussar can both be correct, depending on the DM. As I said in RC's poll, I think that the amount of development required to have a good game may depend on the DM. For someone like me, more setting detail will enhance the gaming session, because of the amount of improv that I do. So, I would personally fall on RC's side of the argument. That doesn't mean that I can't see that for other DMs, very little setting information is needed, as the session planning will provide plenty of detail for a good game.

Hush you. Being reasonable in this discussion will get you flogged with a wet noodle while being given a wedgie by a large hippo.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And, of course, here's the assumption that I've talked about before. That, unless you spend hours developing (or lots of money) some fantasy world, your campaign will be doomed to being a bad game.

Yeah, like that other old chestnut that you have to spend hours developing (or lots of money) some adventure, or your campaign will be doomed to being a bad game. Or that one about spending hours playing.

I asked a while back, and I think it got lost in the wash, if this is why you, RC, believed that the WLD needed so much work to be playable.

Nah, WLD doesn't meet my standard for adventure prep (although I can certainly accept that it meets someone else's standard). I would want to spend a lot of time rewriting the descriptive text and making the empty rooms and hallways more interesting. I'd also want to turn some of the "generic" wandering encounters into more fully-fleshed and ready-to-run encounters.

The one part of my normal world-creation routine that I'd have to do with the WLD is seed areas with hints about what is happening in other areas.

Is it really so hard to believe that perhaps conventional wisdom is mistaken?

It isn't hard to believe that conventional wisdom may be mistaken. Conventional wisdom can be shown to be mistaken about a great many things. However, it should be noted that even after it has been shown to be mistaken, it can still come around and bite you in the arse, because your "proof" that conventional wisdom was mistaken might end up revolving around (1) a misunderstanding of what conventional wisdom says, or (2) a misunderstanding on the part of conventional wisdom as to why something is good or bad, so that disproving the why doesn't disprove the benefit/harm.

OTOH, apart from repeated assertation that conventional wisdom is wrong, I don't see that you have provided any evidence whatsoever on which to examine the merits of the claim. I might have missed said evidence however, so if you could enumerate it for me, I'll be happy to look at it.

If you and yours find Adventure Paths more satisfying than sandbox play, you should go for adventure paths. The idea that adventure paths don't have worldbuilding (including, of course, the worldbuilding elements inherent in the game, including but not limited to spells, monsters, magic items, races, classes, and equipment) is a bit naive, though.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I only want to chime in and say that I think that RC and Hussar can both be correct, depending on the DM. As I said in RC's poll, I think that the amount of development required to have a good game may depend on the DM. For someone like me, more setting detail will enhance the gaming session, because of the amount of improv that I do. So, I would personally fall on RC's side of the argument. That doesn't mean that I can't see that for other DMs, very little setting information is needed, as the session planning will provide plenty of detail for a good game.

I certainly grant that the amount of worldbuilding required to create a well-developed setting is conditional.



To use KM's earlier analogy, if a good campaign equals 4, 1+3 (where 1 is worldbuilding, and 3 is improv) or 3 + 1 might make good games. What I do not believe is that 0 + 4 or 4 + 0 make good campaigns. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.

 

[Hussar]

If you and yours find Adventure Paths more satisfying than sandbox play, you should go for adventure paths. The idea that adventure paths don't have worldbuilding (including, of course, the worldbuilding elements inherent in the game, including but not limited to spells, monsters, magic items, races, classes, and equipment) is a bit naive, though.

I've already stated that you have to do some world building. I've stated that rather emphatically actually. That it is pretty much unavoidable.

You asked for specific examples of world building being something of a bad thing. Here's a few:

• Thousands of pages of Forgotten Realms material, most of which gathers dust
• A Greyhawk paralyzed by its own canon, whose fans will crucify any attempt to bring in anything new, good or bad.
• DM's so in love with their own setting that they cannot adapt to their player's wishes
• Settings where the setting is so strong that the players cannot effect any changes
• Campaign after campaign dying stuttering deaths because the DM spent lots of time figuring out the history of his world and not enough actually crafting adventures

But, of course, you will brush all this off as simply DM problems and could never, possibly be a problem in approach.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Heck, RC, didn't you take me to task a few pages back for saying that posters were saying EXACTLY what you just said? Refresh my memory, but I believe that several people told me that NO ONE said that putting setting on the back burner makes for a bad game.

Yet, that's precisely what you just said.

I agreed that you should do what is needed for your group to have fun. If that means adventure first, so be it; if it means setting first, well there you go. I did concede that I consider giving the PCs something to do is a higher priority than detailing the places they probably won't go; however, I also stated that there needs to be some worldbuilding done to hold my attention. I would likely not be interested in a campaign where:

If you instead spend all that time/money on adventures and then just hang them together with the barest threads of setting, you can run campaign after campaign, drastically changing setting, without doing any more work.

If the adventure was good I'd play until its conclusion. But I would not be interested in playing campaign after campaign in a world with "the barest threads of a setting" where the setting was drastically changed. That does not create any consistency to me and destroys verisimilitude.

Oh, hey, I realize I'm swimming against the current here. There's thousands of pages of world building stuff out there just for D&D, never mind other RPG's. A very large part of the industry is based around the concept that WE MUST HAVE SETTING.

I thought your definition was that setting was the good end of the spectrum and that you *did* need it, since it is "where the action happens". Now we don't need it? Where does the action happen?

See, I finished my WLD campaign. I think we had lots of fun.

While I think fun is the first priority, it doesn't say much in the context of this debate. People can have fun playing checkers. It proves nothing about the merits of worldbuilding.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I've already stated that you have to do some world building. I've stated that rather emphatically actually. That it is pretty much unavoidable.

You asked for specific examples of world building being something of a bad thing. Here's a few:

• Thousands of pages of Forgotten Realms material, most of which gathers dust
• A Greyhawk paralyzed by its own canon, whose fans will crucify any attempt to bring in anything new, good or bad.
• DM's so in love with their own setting that they cannot adapt to their player's wishes
• Settings where the setting is so strong that the players cannot effect any changes
• Campaign after campaign dying stuttering deaths because the DM spent lots of time figuring out the history of his world and not enough actually crafting adventures

But, of course, you will brush all this off as simply DM problems and could never, possibly be a problem in approach.

Well, all but the first two are a problem with the DM. The second is a problem with rabid fanboys. The first I don't see as an issue.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, all but the first two are a problem with the DM. The second is a problem with rabid fanboys. The first I don't see as an issue.

Thanks for saving me the effort of saying the same, only less concisely, Darth!

EDIT: Hussar, I would also add, as an obvious one: DMs who don't do enough worldbuilding, so that their adventures lack context or meaning, or so that the PCs are not allowed some choice in what adventures to follow.