Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[MichaelSomething]

Let me throw my opinion in here by bringing up popular video games.

Diablo II - this is the perfect example of placing the adventure over the world. Sure there are cities and NPCs but the game is more or less designed for you to run around, kill things, and take their loot. There is just enough background story to put you in front of the next wave of creeps. It jumps striaght to the action and who doesn't want action?

Edler Scrools 4 - this game is all about the world being bigger then the adventure. Sure you can save the world that would be just the begining of things you can do. There are tons of places to go, people to meet, and things to experience! Every place you go is alive in its own sense.

 

[Greg K]

I direct you to the other posts in this thread relating about DMs who have chosen world over game first and foremost. To supplement that, I give examples like "a DM whose world forbids swashbuckling warforged ninjas when the group wants to play swashbuckling warforged ninjas."

Well, a DM is not the player's slave and should not run a game that he or she does not enjoy. If the players want something different than the DM wants to run, let someone else step up and DM.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, a DM is not the player's slave and should not run a game that he or she does not enjoy. If the players want something different than the DM wants to run, let someone else step up and DM.

QFMFT

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think that we can all pretty much agree on the DMG's definition as the current running definition for the game. Hussar has made a very cogent point time and again that worldbuilding is stuff done for setting beyond what is needed in next game session.

That's what I mean by "depends on what you mean". Those are two seperate (and mutually exclusive) definitions.

Under the "worldbuilding is anything not used in the session" definition you can certainly have great depth and verisimilitude....because you are not calling the worldbuilding used during that session "worldbuilding" but something else.

Wrong.

Exactly as adding more ketchup to your hamburger doesn't make it a BETTER hamburger.

Disagree. If the worldbuilding elements you add to your setting improve the setting (i.e., are "good" worldbuilding elements), then by necessity they improve the setting. It's a tautological argument. Any work of any type that you do which contributes to the game contributes to the game and therefore makes it better.

This is similar to the problem, btw, with saying that you can have a game that is as deep and rich without developing consistent details. Most people I know define depth and richness of a game by its consistent details.

But worldbuilding doesn't always contribute to a game. There are scads of examples in this thread alone about worldbuilding that was pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game. A world built so that it couldn't accommodate swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap).

Adventure building doesn't always contribute to a game. Adventure building can be pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game. An adventure built so that it couldn't accommodate fighting swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want to fight swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap). You shouldn't design an adventure with fiendish gnolls; you should just design adventures that the players want. If they want a specific magic item, put it in the room they ask to find it in. If they decide in the middle of a pirate adventure that they want to explore a remote asteroid space station, only adventure design that can accommodate this is "good" adventure design.

Adding more ketchup doesn't make the burger better unless you REALLY like ketchup. I believe a lot of D&D players *really* like world building.

FIFY.

You know, the same point can be made without insulting people.

There's nothing wrong in it, but don't suggest that my burger is worse if I don't have any ketchup on it, and don't tell me that I need ketchup to have a real hamburger, and don't presume that unless I can cook you a delicious hamburger without ketchup that my position is somehow illogical.

Let's see. You say that a lot of D&D players really like ketchup, but we shouldn't presume that it is illogical to say that therefore, for the vast majority, a burger without ketchup is inferior to a burger with ketchup, even though you are unable to demonstrate a burger without ketchup that is equal to a burger with ketchup.

And we are not to view your position as illogical.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Once again, you assume that others can't speak for their own games. This makes it impossible to hold a cogent debate because whenever someone demonstrates evidence, one who feels that others can't speak for their own games questions whether or not it is really evidence, which leads to all sorts of wonderful thread-padding semantics discussions but does very, very little to actually address the heart of the point, which is that many DMs have been more interested in their own world than in a D&D game, thus hurting the game.

Do I assume that others can't speak for their games?

I assume that you cannot tell me how good your game is in relation to mine, because you don't have the experience to do so -- just as I cannot say that my game is thousands of times better than yours. How could I possibly know that?

If you say you saw a lion in the forest, and describe it as having antlers and a white tail, however, I feel that I am fully justified in telling you that most people call that animal a "deer". I might be wrong in that assessment -- you might have seen a lion. You might be wrong about the antlers and the white tail. You might have seen the first of a new breed of mutant lions. But the logical conclusion is that what you are calling a "lion" is what everyone else calls a "deer".

Similarly, if you post an adventure design or a DM problem as an example of a worldbuilding problem, you shouldn't be surprised when someone says "That's not a lion, that's a deer". It doesn't mean that they know your game better than you do; it means they're using more common terminology.


RC

 

[Hussar]

That's what I mean by "depends on what you mean". Those are two seperate (and mutually exclusive) definitions.

Under the "worldbuilding is anything not used in the session" definition you can certainly have great depth and verisimilitude....because you are not calling the worldbuilding used during that session "worldbuilding" but something else.

This was never the definition and you know it. Please stop misrepresenting my point. My point was that anything that has next to no chance of appearing in a session is worldbuilding. Thus, the fact that there is a plantation owner with a marriagable daughter a days ride from Sasserine is world building. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the adventure and would take a great deal of work to slot in.

Again, there is no cut off point. Please stop trying to find one. Just because I cannot define the cut off point between fantasy and science fiction does not invalidate either term. The same way as the lack of a definitive cut off point between setting and world building does not invalidate my point.

This is similar to the problem, btw, with saying that you can have a game that is as deep and rich without developing consistent details. Most people I know define depth and richness of a game by its consistent details.

World building does not equate with consistency. Heck, lots of world building contradicts what has come before in RPG's.

Adventure building doesn't always contribute to a game. Adventure building can be pointless, useless, or actively hindering the game. An adventure built so that it couldn't accommodate fighting swashbuckling warforged ninjas contributes nothing to a game whose players want to fight swashbuckling warforged ninjas (to add another one to the heap). You shouldn't design an adventure with fiendish gnolls; you should just design adventures that the players want. If they want a specific magic item, put it in the room they ask to find it in. If they decide in the middle of a pirate adventure that they want to explore a remote asteroid space station, only adventure design that can accommodate this is "good" adventure design.

Nice straw man. We've already covered the idea that the players have to buy into the game. No amount of world building would allow you to do what you've outlined here either so it's a complete non-starter.

Also, since when does good adventure design equate with giving players whatever they want when they want it? And, if that were true, how would having world building change that?

Let's see. You say that a lot of D&D players really like ketchup, but we shouldn't presume that it is illogical to say that therefore, for the vast majority, a burger without ketchup is inferior to a burger with ketchup, even though you are unable to demonstrate a burger without ketchup that is equal to a burger with ketchup.

And we are not to view your position as illogical.

Again, it's not a question of world building being bad. We've been over this. World building is superfluous quite often and generally self indulgent. But, it's rarely bad. It doesn't hurt the game, but, IMO, it also adds surprisingly little for the effort put into it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This was never the definition and you know it.

Please read the KM post to which I am responding. That definition comes from him, not from me.

Hussar has made a very cogent point time and again that worldbuilding is stuff done for setting beyond what is needed in next game session.

I am responding to what KM wrote, not what you wrote.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

World building does not equate with consistency. Heck, lots of world building contradicts what has come before in RPG's.

So, you don't believe that, for many people, the point of worldbuilding is consistency?

This is like saying that, because lots of adventures are bad, adventures in general are not intended to be good.

Nice straw man. We've already covered the idea that the players have to buy into the game. No amount of world building would allow you to do what you've outlined here either so it's a complete non-starter.

It does nothing more than show the problem with the position I was responding to.

Neither good adventure design nor good worldbuilding equates with giving players whatever they want when they want it.

 

[Hussar]

OK, well then let's use a statement by Hussar as the basis, since it represents what I would suspect to be a lack of depth (it really depends what Hussar means by "the barest threads of setting", but for the hypothetical example lets assume the worst):

How about we don't assume the DM is a slack jawed moron and actually is a reasonable person? Might make things a bit more realistic. Instead of our knuckle dragger, let me show you how it could go in this "worst case scenario".

Let's say the adventure is to go into a dungeon and recover a relic of some sort. The party starts in a nearby village and has to travel to the dungeon. The DM has done no worldbuilding beyond what is present in the adventure. He is also not gifted at improv. I as a player have some questions:

Reasonable assumptions. Note, that you can have a great deal of setting detail without world building. You have allowed the DM to detail the setting for the adventure, so we'll work with that.

ME: Ok what nations are there? Where can my character be from?

As an aside, has anyone ever asked you this as a DM? I can't think of a single time I've ever had a player ask me this. Heck, it's usually an uphill battle to get the players to remember the name of the world we are playing in.

DM: There are nations for all of the races in the PHB.
ME: Ok...what are the human nations like?
DM: I don't know...what kind of nation do you want to be from?
ME: Well, can I be from one that is kind of like ancient China?
DM: Sure.
ME: How does my nation get along with the other nations?
DM: That isn't important in the adventure.
ME: Ok.

Let me rephrase that in the context of someone who is putting adventure first:

Me: Ok what nations are there? Where can my character be from?
DM: Well, I'm trying something a little different in this campaign. What do you have in mind?
Me:Well, can I be from one that is kind of like ancient China?
DM: Hrm, sounds interesting. What kind of class are you thinking of?
Me: Cleric.
DM: So, like a Shujenja?
Me: Naw, I want to stick with straight cleric, but, I'm thinking more of a Buddhist sort of approach.
DM: Ok, that sounds fine. You don't really need a god with that, so, we'll just use a force. We'll have to hammer out a couple of domains, but that shouldn't be a problem. Really, I hadn't intended for any sort of Asian stuff in here, but, not a problem. We can simply say you are a fish out of water, from far away. Take a free language in something no one speaks. You'll be responsible for coming up with the religious trappings you feel comfortable with. You are a cleric, so, you should have some clerical duties, but, I trust you, so I'll leave that in your hands.

So I make a human priest and do what I can to make him represent a culture based on ancient China. We start the session in the town. Again, I have some questions:

ME: Is there a branch of my church in this town?
DM: The adventure doesn't say...I'll say no. It's too far away.
ME: Ok, are there any churches in the town?
DM: Just one.
ME: Ok, I go there. I'm going to talk to the priest to get a feel for his religion.
DM: It just says his name, level, and that he is a priest of an agricultural deity.

DM: Umm, I gotta ask, why?
Me: Well I want to get into my character.
DM: No, I mean, why are you messing about with this NPC? He's not important, and you're never likely to see him again. Why are you wasting the entire table's time with this? What do you want to get out of it?
ME: Ummm....

ME: Ok, my religion venerates nature spirits so we should get along well.
DM: Sure.
ME: Is the town facing any problems that I could help with before we head to the dungeon?
DM: It doesn't say...so, no.
ME: Ok

There's a problem with this? You, a complete stranger, walk up to a person in a town and ask if there are any problems. And you expect people to just pony up and drop plot hooks? Because you both happen to be clerics? At least gimme a gather information check, something, anything. Because, reading this, it looks perfectly reasonable to me.

As the party prepares to head to the dungeon, we ask what the trip there will entail.

DM: You have to go east through the Forest of Endless Death.
ME: That sounds unpleasant. Can we go around the forest to the south?
DM: The map doesn't show what is there. So I'll say no.
ME: Why not?
DM: Because there is an impassable desert there, ok?
ME: What about to the north?
DM: More desert.
ME: The forest is in the middle of the desert?
DM: Yup.
ME: Ok...

Again, we have the assumption that without detailed world building we are automatically railroading. Sorry, that's not true. World building and rail roading have nothing to do with eachother. Heck, my world built map could actually have this information on it and be precisely the same railroad.

Now, since we're going adventure first, a better solution would be something like this:

DM: Is there anything you need to do in town besides supplies shopping?
Players: Nope, we're good. Just gotta buy that hard tack and oats for the horses.
DM: You stand in awe in front of the entrance of X. Vast stone columns lie broken like toys in front of a massive cave...
Players: Huh? What's going on?
DM: Look, when you watched Raiders of the Lost Arc, how much time did Indie spend in a shop getting food and stuff.
Players: Can't really remember.
DM: Right. Told you this was going to be different. You're in front of X.
Players: You mean we don't have to ponce about for three hours haggling with horse merchants like in Bob's campaign?
Bob: Hey!
DM: That's right. Straight to the action. Just like a Conan novel. Just like Star Trek.
Players: Hrmm...

After a perilous journey through the forest and a decent little dungeon crawl, the party finds the relic. The DM's next adventure that he purchased features finding an island where some pirates hid some treasure. The DM decides to drop the hook for that one in the dungeon. He says that we find a clue that indicates some pirates took some treasure from the dungeon and hid it.

Again, let's not assume complete incompetence on the part of the DM. If the DM is a blathering idiot, no amount of world building is going to help him either.

ME: What kind of clue is it?
DM: Ummm...a journal.

Hang on, you said that the DM prepped the setting presented within the adventure. I would consider major plot hooks to be part of that.

ME: Who wrote it?
DM: A pirate.
ME: What was his name?
DM: Blackbeard.
ME: Really? Why did he leave his journal behind?

Quick change on this:

DM: Well, it's a journal so it doesn't really say. It's not like there's an entry - Day 37 Decided to leave my journal behind.

ME: Ok. What else does it say?
DM: It says where to find the island where they are hiding the treasure.
ME: Ok. I guess we have to go back through the Forest of Horrible Dying and back to town before we can get to the coast.
DM: It's the Forest of Endless Death and no, that would take too long. You can just go south to the town that starts the next adventure. It is on the coast.
ME: I thought there was an impassable desert to the south?
DM: Oh. Well, no that is too inconvenient. It is just some grassy hills.
ME: Ok....

Again, we have the assumption that without world building you force railroads, AND, now we have the assumption that the setting cannot possibly be consistent, that the setting is completely dependent on the whim of the DM at the time. Sorry, doesn't follow.

Now, that dungeon could have been pretty fun. The pirate adventure could be a blast. In the above example the DM had enough setting to run the adventure, and he certainly did well to ensure the players had something to do that session. But I just don't feel that campaign is as deep as one where the DM did some worldbuilding beforehand. If he had (or had used a published setting), he could have answered many of the questions raised during the session that didn't directly pertain to the adventure.

Because wasting the entire table's time on insignificant setting trivia is a good thing? Let me ask this, how many players, without meta game knowledge, would ask if there were any marriageable daughters around Sasserine? Part of prepping the adventure would be anticipating reasonable questions.

He could have had enough info to give my priest something interesting to do while the party is prepping for the journey.

Or, he could have realized that splitting up the party so that one player could hog lots of air time was pointless and since the scenes in the town were pretty much all exposition, he wanted to get to the action before Ted went to sleep.

He could have let us go around the forest.

Of course, this assumes that there was anything in the forest. How is this different than RC's assertion that good adventure design should kow tow to the players? If the players expect to find adventure around every hill, why bother making more than three hills?

He could have setup the hook for the next adventure in a better way.

I'll agree with that. And, given that he would have all eight of his adventures lined up, along with half a dozen side treks, BEFORE the campaign started, I would think that it isn't a large assumption that he would have set some better hooks.

Now this is certainly a fairly extreme example, but to me it illustrates how worldbuilding can add depth.

Well, no. It did illustrate your assumptions rather well though.

Can world building add depth? Of course it can. I would be an idiot to say that Forgotten Realms doesn't have depth. Good grief, it has so much depth it has its own gravity well. But, at the end of the day, who cares? Most of it is irrelevant. Square windows and all that.

 

[Hussar]

Neither good adventure design nor good worldbuilding equates with giving players whatever they want when they want it.

Now THAT I agree with.