Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[AbdulAlhazred]

1. Scifi writer and not a GM. He may be right about the kind of stories he wrote, but he was in control of where the characters went and how much needed to be known for that. Players rarely oblige with such 'script-on-rails linear progression through the story...

2. He never achieved the vast success of the LoTR stories and they had vast amounts of world building...

3. I have been GM'ing for 40 years and every time I have homebrewed having more detail in an evocative and inherently cohesive gameworld has led to a better campaign than those which didn't have that.

Every time...

Well, having posted that too enjoy world building, and having GMed for over 40 years as well, I tend to disagree. That is, I don't find that world building improves my game. In fact it probably constrains my freedom to frame scenes for players which would most effectively address their agenda, to put it in Pemerton's terms.

 

[Caliburn101]

Well, having posted that too enjoy world building, and having GMed for over 40 years as well, I tend to disagree. That is, I don't find that world building improves my game. In fact it probably constrains my freedom to frame scenes for players which would most effectively address their agenda, to put it in Pemerton's terms.

That is of course subject to the style of game one runs. Detailed homebrew creations would indeed be a bridge too far for some.

For myself, I like to have depth of culture, religion, race, heritage, geography, magic, social constructs and government types etc. I usually run a 'Session 0' or it's equivalent to establish what the broad-brush elements are that the group want to see, which of course already creates some enthusiasm and sense of ownership from the players. it is also their world right from the start...

Once that is all in, the players can integrate their backgrounds far more into the world, and their personal and group stories can be woven into the narrative far more. One only has to look at the massive popularity of Game of Thrones to see how character and world can interact to great effect, or at Babylon 5 to see how deep and hidden 'cosmology' and ancient history can profoundly drive plot and drama.

If you run a more casual or episodic type of game, then the characters would naturally take the lead, and you can have their backgrounds (and whatever they want to put into those) shape their environment. That is a perfectly sound basis for a game. It is also of course possible to create the gameworld on the fly in a reiterative way, but in my experience, for this to work really well, it requires a great deal of experience as a GM - but then you clearly have that!

Nevertheless, from my personal point of view, there is greater potential for successful 'suspension of disbelief' and increased 'buy-in' from players when they feel the gameworld makes inherent sense, is interesting and has a depth they can interact in.

Saving the village from orcs is what adventurers are about. However, I do find there tends to be more catharsis involved when that village is part of a Kingdom and a world the players are invested in, and they can see how their actions impact subsequent events, places and NPCs, rather than being just the next module on the way to 20th level.

 

[pemerton]

One only has to look at the massive popularity of Game of Thrones to see how character and world can interact to great effect

<snip>

If you run a more casual or episodic type of game, then the characters would naturally take the lead, and you can have their backgrounds (and whatever they want to put into those) shape their environment. That is a perfectly sound basis for a game. It is also of course possible to create the gameworld on the fly in a reiterative way, but in my experience, for this to work really well, it requires a great deal of experience as a GM

<snip>

Saving the village from orcs is what adventurers are about. However, I do find there tends to be more catharsis involved when that village is part of a Kingdom and a world the players are invested in

Scifi writer and not a GM. He may be right about the kind of stories he wrote, but he was in control of where the characters went and how much needed to be known for that. Players rarely oblige with such 'script-on-rails linear progression through the story

It's probably true that worldbuilding is not a big part of causal games; but I don't think the converse need be true. I think it's quite possible to have a game in which the players are invested in the fiction, and interact with the world, but this does not rest heavily on GM world building.

I'm also not sure that GM experience is that important. Maybe more important is a good sense of tropes and genre, and a good ability to read player signals. System can also make a difference (eg by making it easier or harder for the players to send signals; and by making it easier or harder to introduce elements into the fiction that respond to them).

 

[Dire Bare]

I couldn't get through all 109 pages of this resurrected thread, so if I bring up some points already discussed, sorry . . .

1) Worldbuilding isn't binary in its absence or presence, but rather is a continuum from light to heavy. I can't imagine any D&D product or game that doesn't include at least a minimum of worldbuilding, the core D&D rulebooks certainly give us a light touch of worldbuilding that are probably pretty common in a lot of home games.

2) Different products and different styles of games, including different degrees of worldbuilding, exist for gamers with different preferences. If you enjoy strong worldbuilding, or if you prefer a light touch, as long as you and your group are having fun its all good. Worldbuilding isn't wasted effort if the person doing the work is enjoying themselves.

3) Even when it comes to narrative fiction, worldbuilding can be valuable. Tolkien is a great example, his notes on the world of Middle-Earth exceed in word-count his published stories, including the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. But Tolkien enjoyed worldbuilding, and generations of fans have enjoyed diving deep into Middle-Earth lore. Not all fans, of course, some just read the Lord of the Rings novels (or watched the movies) and called it good. Do you need a working knowledge of the elvish language or the history of Durin's folk to enjoy the novels? Of course not, but for some, it most certainly adds to the experience.

As a DM, I enjoy worldbuilding itself as a hobby, and much of what I've created never sees a game table, although sometimes the depth of background has served to deepen the experience for my players. As a player, and a fan of literature and movies, I enjoy deeply realized worlds and nerding out over the details . . . up to a point (some of Greenwood's earlier articles on the minutiae of Realmslore were too much for me, but I know other fans enjoyed it). I've also ran, and played in, some very "light" games (in regards to worldbuilding) that were tons of fun.

So, anyone who categorically states that worldbuilding is a waste of time, in gaming or fiction, is full of it!

 

[Hussar]

Viewing this thread in light of events of the past several years, pretty much demonstrates to me that world building is far more negative than positive. It's limiting to creativity because, once you start with all the world building and accumulating all that game lore, people become EXTREMELY attached to it and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any and all changes to that lore.

IOW, world building leads to the lore police gate keeping the game and standing in the way of any new ideas from entering. It's stifling and stagnating.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Viewing this thread in light of events of the past several years, pretty much demonstrates to me that world building is far more negative than positive. It's limiting to creativity because, once you start with all the world building and accumulating all that game lore, people become EXTREMELY attached to it and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any and all changes to that lore.

IOW, world building leads to the lore police gate keeping the game and standing in the way of any new ideas from entering. It's stifling and stagnating.

How so?

I mean, I follow what you’re saying, but in what way does this happen? Do you mean in a home game between the players and a DM? Or do you mean about established lore of published worlds in a canonical sense?

And why would lore be changed? Do you mean in a retcon manner or more just natural change due to in game action and events (a nation switching from a tyrranical monarchy to a republic because some heroes toppled the overlord, etc.)?

 

[Hussar]

How so?

I mean, I follow what you’re saying, but in what way does this happen? Do you mean in a home game between the players and a DM? Or do you mean about established lore of published worlds in a canonical sense?

And why would lore be changed? Do you mean in a retcon manner or more just natural change due to in game action and events (a nation switching from a tyrranical monarchy to a republic because some heroes toppled the overlord, etc.)?

I was more referring to official canon. 4e got absolutely crucified for not following earlier edition canon (even when it actually DID follow earlier canon, people insisted that their interpretations of earlier canon were canonical). The canon police come out of the woodwork as soon as any change is proposed - "You can't change this because in some article in Dragon 128, this random author established that this other thing is true"!!! "OMG!!! Blue dragons can't possibly live near coastlines!!! They live in deserts!!!!".

And, it's almost always self serving. 5e changes canon all over the place, yet the world builders out there don't seem to mind too much. Kobolds are slaves to dragons? Really? Since when? Since when do dragons keep slaves? Isn't this the kind of intrusive world building that 4e was criticised for? Oh, right, those self-same people like 5e, so, world building changes are okay, so long as they happen to like the edition.

I much, much prefer AD&D's approach to the whole thing where world building is extremely limited and there is virtually no lore associated with anything. Saves me the time and trouble re-writing and ignoring vast swaths of the book. And allows for new ideas and new takes to have room to grow without being stomped into the ground by the clod stomping Nerd boots.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Saving the village from orcs is what adventurers are about. However, I do find there tends to be more catharsis involved when that village is part of a Kingdom and a world the players are invested in, and they can see how their actions impact subsequent events, places and NPCs, rather than being just the next module on the way to 20th level.

I tend to think that the adventurers are 'about' some sort of conflict, which generally exposes some type of beliefs or agenda which is the generation of that conflict, much as with literary and other dramatic forms. So, I would say that "this village is my home, I will defend it to the death" might be a belief, and that would certainly go well with "saving the village from orcs." OTOH there could be other needs and agendas. I can perfectly well imagine a character which is going to actively help the orcs, although he might only want CERTAIN PEOPLE to get their clocks punched (perhaps). Even in the case of just 'bad guy orcs' questions arise of mercy, who's really the good guy, etc. These are all good stuff to drive a dramatic story!

Now, do you need a lot of deep backstory, and does it even help? I don't think the divide is necessarily 'casual' vs 'serious' or whatever. I mean, I'm pretty dedicated, but aside from the quirk I have about my D&D game world, I rarely do any world building. If I do, then its usually a genre refinement exercise in concert with the players.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I was more referring to official canon. 4e got absolutely crucified for not following earlier edition canon (even when it actually DID follow earlier canon, people insisted that their interpretations of earlier canon were canonical). The canon police come out of the woodwork as soon as any change is proposed - "You can't change this because in some article in Dragon 128, this random author established that this other thing is true"!!! "OMG!!! Blue dragons can't possibly live near coastlines!!! They live in deserts!!!!".

And, it's almost always self serving. 5e changes canon all over the place, yet the world builders out there don't seem to mind too much. Kobolds are slaves to dragons? Really? Since when? Since when do dragons keep slaves? Isn't this the kind of intrusive world building that 4e was criticised for? Oh, right, those self-same people like 5e, so, world building changes are okay, so long as they happen to like the edition.

I much, much prefer AD&D's approach to the whole thing where world building is extremely limited and there is virtually no lore associated with anything. Saves me the time and trouble re-writing and ignoring vast swaths of the book. And allows for new ideas and new takes to have room to grow without being stomped into the ground by the clod stomping Nerd boots.

I'm more sympathetic to world building in general than you are, just because it CAN be fun. OTOH I too have a bad taste in my mouth from the whole 5e experience of basically "we throw up our hands and surrender, nothing but the (not so) Great Wheel can ever be canon in D&D!" It seemed quite sad. 4e's cosmology had a huge amount of good stuff to offer, but ANATHEMA! Feh!

IMHO GW is a very nice example of backstory that doesn't bring gifts.

 

[Imaculata]

It's limiting to creativity because, once you start with all the world building and accumulating all that game lore, people become EXTREMELY attached to it and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any and all changes to that lore.

I have never experienced this in any of my games (which are pretty heavy on worldbuilding). Isn't the DM in charge of the lore? Why would the players try and police the DM's lore?

I was more referring to official canon. 4e got absolutely crucified for not following earlier edition canon (even when it actually DID follow earlier canon, people insisted that their interpretations of earlier canon were canonical). The canon police come out of the woodwork as soon as any change is proposed - "You can't change this because in some article in Dragon 128, this random author established that this other thing is true"!!! "OMG!!! Blue dragons can't possibly live near coastlines!!! They live in deserts!!!!".

So what I get from this, is the impression that you're mostly against official D&D lore (in other words, when WotC does world building). But that is very different from a DM doing world building for his own campaign setting. If I say that my campaign has dragons that don't keep slaves, and that don't talk, no one is going to complain about it. It's my setting, I can do what I want.