Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[pemerton]

Isn't the DM in charge of the lore? Why would the players try and police the DM's lore?

<snip>

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.

I think this raises one key question (maybe the key question) about the relationship between worldbuilding and RPGing.

Shared fiction is at the heart of RPGing: the GM describes some situation to the players; the players declare actions for their PCs; those actions are resolved; new fiction is thereby established.

What is the relationship between this collective endeavour, and one participant's sole authorship of a whole lot of stories?

 

[Imaro]

I think this raises one key question (maybe the key question) about the relationship between worldbuilding and RPGing.

Shared fiction is at the heart of RPGing: the GM describes some situation to the players; the players declare actions for their PCs; those actions are resolved; new fiction is thereby established.

What is the relationship between this collective endeavour, and one participant's sole authorship of a whole lot of stories?

Isn't this for the gaming group to decide? I mean honestly we have games that run the gamut from sole world authorship by the GM to games that create the world as an equal endeavor shared by all players, so I would assume groups would choose to play games that fit their particular needs. Now whether the flagship game of the hobby should swing one way or the other on this axis is a different question. As it stands 5e has optional rules for co-authorship of the world in the DMG, but I'm not sure I thiknk the game would be be best served by that being the default. OAN, but related I don't think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s proposed fiction less D&D would be anywhere near as popular as D&D currently is, the game is best served (from a sales perspective) in getting people invested in the default lore... for different and experimental lore you have various camapign settings.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s proposed fiction less D&D would be anywhere near as popular as D&D currently is

I think this is probably true.

I also think that "lore" is not the same thing as worldbuilding. That kobolds tend to serve dragons doesn't tell us anything about the existence, location etc of any particular dragon, nor any particular kobold.

 

[billd91]

I think this is probably true.

I also think that "lore" is not the same thing as worldbuilding. That kobolds tend to serve dragons doesn't tell us anything about the existence, location etc of any particular dragon, nor any particular kobold.

Nevertheless, if that's part of the local setting, then it definitely is world building because it helps define characteristics and relationships in the world that other campaigns may not incorporate. You don't have to be defining specific creatures to be worldbuilding. This is even more obviously true if you establish lore in contrast to the default expectations of the game or players. For example, describing halflings as cannibals certainly was a worldbuilding aspect of Dark Sun lore even though it didn't describe any specific location or individual halfling.

 

[Campbell]

Shared fiction does not (or at least need not) imply shared world building. We can value the here and now instead. Make the game more about what is happening right now than appreciation of someone else's individual creativity.

 

[Imaro]

I think this is probably true.

I also think that "lore" is not the same thing as worldbuilding. That kobolds tend to serve dragons doesn't tell us anything about the existence, location etc of any particular dragon, nor any particular kobold.

Could you elaborate more on this? I'm honestly not seeing how this wouldn't be a part of worldbuilding. I feel like you're saying it's not granular enough to be worldbuilding... but then we get into questions of how granular must it be before it satisfies the criteria... I would also ask if you don't consider this worldbuilding, what do you consider it?

 

[Imaro]

Shared fiction does not (or at least need not) imply shared world building. We can value the here and now instead. Make the game more about what is happening right now than appreciation of someone else's individual creativity.

What do you mean by "shared fiction"?

EDIT: I would also say if you are playing in an exploratory game, then appreciation of someone else's individual creativity could be the (or at least part of the) experience players are looking for.

 

[pemerton]

Nevertheless, if that's part of the local setting, then it definitely is world building because it helps define characteristics and relationships in the world that other campaigns may not incorporate. You don't have to be defining specific creatures to be worldbuilding. This is even more obviously true if you establish lore in contrast to the default expectations of the game or players. For example, describing halflings as cannibals certainly was a worldbuilding aspect of Dark Sun lore even though it didn't describe any specific location or individual halfling.

Could you elaborate more on this? I'm honestly not seeing how this wouldn't be a part of worldbuilding. I feel like you're saying it's not granular enough to be worldbuilding... but then we get into questions of how granular must it be before it satisfies the criteria... I would also ask if you don't consider this worldbuilding, what do you consider it?

Every element in a RPG has fictional meaning - that what's distinguishes a RPG from a boardgame or wargame.

As soon as you set out parameters for PC build, you are establishing "lore" in the sense of patterns of fictional elements (eg there will be armoured knights, or barbarians who fighter with great axes unarmoured, or officers in an Imperial Interstellar Navy, or whatever it might be).

But I don't think that really counts as world building. Likewise deciding that kobolds are min-dragons who serve dragons.

None of that establishes any actual setting or stage for the action of a RPG to take place on. Which is to say it doesn't create a world.

 

[Imaro]

Every element in a RPG has fictional meaning - that what's distinguishes a RPG from a boardgame or wargame.

As soon as you set out parameters for PC build, you are establishing "lore" in the sense of patterns of fictional elements (eg there will be armoured knights, or barbarians who fighter with great axes unarmoured, or officers in an Imperial Interstellar Navy, or whatever it might be).

But I don't think that really counts as world building. Likewise deciding that kobolds are min-dragons who serve dragons.

None of that establishes any actual setting or stage for the action of a RPG to take place on. Which is to say it doesn't create a world.

Ok again maybe I'm not grasping this but in establishing armoured knights or barbarians with great axes we are in fact establishing part of the world...that these things exist in said world. How is that not worldbuilding? Likewise deciding that kobolds are mini-dragons who serve dragons dictates the culture of kobolds (as a whole) in your particular world. I get you don't consider it worldbuilding but I feel like you haven't given a coherent reason as to why this doesn't count. I also think it might help if you provide some examples of what you do consider worldbuilding to contrast.

EDIT: I feel like you as well as [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] are making definitive statements but not really defining your reasoning behind them.

 

[billd91]

Every element in a RPG has fictional meaning - that what's distinguishes a RPG from a boardgame or wargame.

As soon as you set out parameters for PC build, you are establishing "lore" in the sense of patterns of fictional elements (eg there will be armoured knights, or barbarians who fighter with great axes unarmoured, or officers in an Imperial Interstellar Navy, or whatever it might be).

But I don't think that really counts as world building. Likewise deciding that kobolds are min-dragons who serve dragons.

None of that establishes any actual setting or stage for the action of a RPG to take place on. Which is to say it doesn't create a world.

In the examples you mention - you're establishing that there is an Imperial Interstellar Navy (and an Empire, for that matter), that there are barbarians who prefer greataxes and eschew armor, and that there are armored knights. None of those are necessarily givens in any particular setting. Star Trek, for example, doesn't have an Imperial Interstellar Navy - at least not on the Federation side - so you're clearly not doing a far future utopian/Star Trek campaign. A campaign based around the Three Musketeers is unlikely to have greataxe-wielding barbarians or armored knights (in the traditional Medieval Romance or Game of Thrones mode anyway) so you're probably not doing a campaign like that. By establishing the parameters of the setting, you are worldbuilding.