Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Riley37]

But, 90% of the FR material has little or nothing to do with the Sword coast. And it certainly isn't needed to play nor is it particularly even referenced.

This differs from my experience with 5E. Maybe I'm an outlier?

I started playing 5E, after years away from D&D, in Adventurer's League at the Friendly Local Game Store. I had zero previous contact with FR. But I became interested in the politics of Phlan, because that's the setting. One of the early intro adventures - for some people, their first session of 5E - involves a hidden temple, run by members of the Phlan city guard who practice a hardcore splinter cult of Bane. Okay... what's Bane? If this is Bane extremism, and the guy running the city is a more moderate worshipper of Bane, then how do those differ? Wait, his line used to be Zhentarim... there's a Zhentarim capital? Well, dang, how far away is it, could we maybe form useful links with NPCs at Zhentil Keep? Wait, there's no contact with Zhentil Keep - what happened?

That's just as a player. Then I started DMing the weekly AL game, and if there's a cleric in the party, I need *some* understanding of their deity to feel like I'm properly supporting their roleplaying. There's an NPC who offers the party a mission; that NPC has a Harpers symbol; a PC might double-check - so it it *possible* for a non-Harper to falsely present themself as a Harper? Yes, there's a way, but I spent a while on Candlekeep before I found it.

Then the AL table filled up, eight players every Monday with a waitlist, so I spun off a home game, and it snowballed from there once I was writing my own scenarios and trying to keep them consistent with what players could reasonably expect if they'd read Salvatore.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

they want immersion.

I don't pretend to know what "they" want. And, frankly, you have no idea either.

Arguing that good world-building or setting doesn't make a game more satisfying is kinda illogical. After all, a game without a decent setting with it's attractions and strengths still has every single one of those strengths but much more besides when a good setting is added.

That's just a self-evident fact.

That would be true IF people had unlimited time. Unfortunately, most of us don't. And, I've seen far, far too many DM's who mistake world building for campaign. We used to call them "Tour Des Realms" games where all you do is wander around making the appropriate oohing and awwing noises over the wonderful creativity of the DM.

No thanks. Given the choice of two campaigns - both good campaigns, one with considerable world building (say, one of the Paizo AP's, for example) and one without, I'll take without every single time.

 

[Caliburn101]

I don't pretend to know what "they" want. And, frankly, you have no idea either.

If you accept that rpg'ing is a form of storytelling, then it is actually very well established as to 'what they want'.

Effective 'suspension of disbelief', 'immersion' (which serves the prior need) and 'catharsis', which is more complete when a good story achieves immersion. Characterisation and good story arc too of course, but it's all the right elements that combine to make a story great.

I am not a mind reader, and I haven't surveyed everyone involved, but then the above requirements of a persons enjoyment of a story are not mine, they are the collective experience of humanity and how it tells and experiences stories. There are any number of books you can read on the subject, starting from study of the ancient Greek playwrights onwards.

As for the "Tour Des Realms" GMs you describe. Yikes - has that been the majority of your experience? Because I cannot recall one I have experience of. If so I can understand your position entirely. But then, aren't they just bad GMs, and exceptions to boot?

If so, it's a little unfair perhaps to judge my point based only on exceptions.

Once again, the thread is about world building being bad. Your point seems to be about GMs being bad using their homebrew creation as the vehicle for being bad. One could just as easily have a bad experience with a GM that can't roleplay interesting NPCs or railroads the players through overly-linear plots. In fact I would argue having standalone adventures not set in a world where the GM has some information about what might happen if the adventurers go 'off-piste' leads to more railroading, not less.

But hey ho. One can only judge by one's experience, and if yours has taught you that home-brewers are bad GMs, and their games are to be avoided, that's a great shame.

 

[Hussar]

Who said anything about home brewers?

Doesn't really matter IME. Home brewer or published setting - DM's who spend extended efforts in world building make games that I don't want to play in. And, honestly, the same goes for fiction. My favorite genre fiction is short story or maybe novelette. Full length fantasy novel? Outside of a couple of authors, I haven't read a full length fantasy novel (or those bloody door stoppers that publishers keep banging out) in many years.

To me, George R.R. Martin is in desperate need of an editor to tell him NO. I skip entire chapters of his books without losing anything actually important. Read the first two or maybe three books (it was some omnibus edition that someone gave me as a present), once, skipping pages and will never read it again. Can't even be bothered watching the TV show, it turned me off that much.

I'm simply not interested.

 

[Imaro]

Just a point about would D&D be as popular without the world building. I'd offer a counter example: 5e D&D. Arguably the most popular or at least in the top 2 versions of D&D. Yet, the entire 5e line consists of what, 8 campaign length modules, a single (fairly short) setting guide, and a character option book.

Not a lot of world building going on there. It's a far, far more practical approach to the game that we haven't seen since 1e, which, also, had very, very little in the way of world building. Based on evidence, I'd say that versions of the game that delved hard into world building were considerably less successful than versions which focused on more practical supplements.

Another point I think you're glossing over is for the first time in history all of the previous setting material is available for purchase... so if you want more FR it's easy enough to buy any of the previous edition's sourcebooks. Honestly it was a pretty smart move for a company trying to keep it's officially released book count down.

 

[Imaro]

This is getting into "angels on the head of a pin" territory. But proceeding nevertheless: saying to the gang that I want to GM a "default 4e" game means that I am telling them what cosmology I'm interested in, that we can treat the stuff in the PHB about dwarves having been subjugated by giants, hating orcs, etc, as given. It's not a statement about the metaphysical nature of an imaginary entity ("the gameworld") - it's a statement about expectations, permissions etc at the table.

And it produced the desired result - I got players building PCs with various sorts of connections to the default backstory - Raven Queen worshippers, a refugee from a sacked city wanting to restore the greatness of Nerath, a fey warlock who had entered into a pact after an encounter with Corellon in a forest grove, etc.

Had I wanted to mention orcs at some point, that would not have been controversial. But I never have, and no PC has ever gone looking for any. (It turned out, in our game, that the dwarves of the northern ranges mostly fight against goblins and hobgoblins who worship Bane, not against Orcs who worship Gruumsh.) So does the world contain orcs? Who knows? - it's just never come up. The same is true of some gods (I don't think Avandra has ever come up either) and, as I already posted, some sorts of magical traditions (such as Wardens).

A disposition to allow an element into the gameworld if someone wants it (which is what "let's play a default 4e game" signals) isn't the same thing as actually establishing that the world contains those elements..

Well first let me say with, IMO, your nebulous distinction between what is or isn't workdbuilding... I think we are already in "angels on the head of a pin" territory and this newly defined way of looking at default only strengthens that view. To me this is you saying one thing... 4e is the default world... but in reality meaning something totally different... Nothing is default until it's been established in play. Again I'll ask why not just state that from the beginning? If 4e was your default then anything not established as diverging would by "default" be based on 4e lore instead you've basically said anything not established in play based on 4e lore is well... nothing, that seems like the opposite of default.

On a tangential note...I'm curious are your players allowed to change things about the world before they start playing? In other words if a player stated he wanted to play a dwarf but instead of them having been enslaved by giants he'd rather their history revolve around enslavement by orcs, or aboleths... would that be ok with you?

 

[Imaro]

Actual novelists establish setting as part of the process of writing. There's no reason why that can't be done in RPGing.

And some world build before writing... I don't think one method or the other has been proven to give objectively better stories

A pre-authored setting can undermine what might otherwise be a strength in a game: for instance, it can rule out the possibility of certain actions (for the PCs) which otherwise might have been possible.

But this is assuming a pre-authored setting isn't designed to rule out the possibility of certain actions because it makes the game better (for playing in that particular setting). In other words your statement here seems to be predicated on bad setting design as opposed to good setting design where any restriction in choice would be, presumably, to enhance gameplay in said setting.

 

[pemerton]

And some world build before writing... I don't think one method or the other has been proven to give objectively better stories

Well, the poster to whom I replied seem to be asserting that worldbuilding in advance, presumably by the GM, is going to improve the richness of the RPG experience.

I deny that.

If you think that neither method in relation to novels has been proven to be better, then presumably you accept at least the weak version of my claim, namely, that the claim that worldbuilding in advance must enrich the RPG experience is unproven.

(Obviously I am also intending a stronger version of my claim also, but I don't think you would agree with that.)

Arguing that good world-building or setting doesn't make a game more satisfying is kinda illogical. After all, a game without a decent setting with it's attractions and strengths still has every single one of those strengths but much more besides when a good setting is added.

That's just a self-evident fact.

A pre-authored setting can undermine what might otherwise be a strength in a game: for instance, it can rule out the possibility of certain actions (for the PCs) which otherwise might have been possible.

But this is assuming a pre-authored setting isn't designed to rule out the possibility of certain actions because it makes the game better (for playing in that particular setting). In other words your statement here seems to be predicated on bad setting design as opposed to good setting design where any restriction in choice would be, presumably, to enhance gameplay in said setting.

I don't know what better game and enhance gameplay mean in this context.

Obviously, perhaps tautologically, the constraints that a setting establishes in respect of action declaration will enhance the fidelity of the gameplay to the setting. But it's not a self-evident fact (as per the quote I responded to) that this is simply an addition to the strengths of a game without a strong setting. It's clearly a change, a new constraint.

Personally I find the appeal of fidelity to setting, as an element of gameplay, to be rather modest. Particularly if, by "setting", we are talking about not broad tropes, genre elements and labels (like "City of Greyhawk", "Suel Empire" etc) but are talking about the sorts of details (geographic minutiae, historical minutiae, NPC locations and motivations, etc) that one typically finds in published setting books.

Well first let me say with, IMO, your nebulous distinction between what is or isn't workdbuilding

<snip>

To me this is you saying one thing... 4e is the default world... but in reality meaning something totally different... Nothing is default until it's been established in play. Again I'll ask why not just state that from the beginning?

Well, all I can report is that no one in my group found what I said "nebulous" or had any confusion. Nor has any confusion emerged in the course of play.

I suspect that if you asked one of my players (the player of the invoker/wizard) whether there are orcs in the gameworld he would answer "yes" - because he knows there are goblins and hobgoblins, and I think he's fairly casual about distinguising them from orcs (or perhaps believes that I am, which I am in non-D&D games, and so is projecting that onto this campaign). If you asked the player of the drow sorcerer, I think he'd be more likely to say "I'm not sure." Not because he's not aware of orcs as something in the Monster Manual, but because I think he's more sensitive to what has or hasn't come out in play.

But frankly, "Do you want to play a default 4e game?" simply doesn't mean - at least in my langauge - "Do you want to play a game in which we take for granted that everything mentioned in a 4e book is part of the gameworld?" It means do you want to play a game in which the assumption is that everything in default 4e, especially the PHB which is what you're working from as a player, is permitted; and in which the basic setting conceits are the core 4e ones.

If half-orcs were a PC race in the PHB then probably it would be taken for granted that there are orcs in the world - but half-orcs aren't such a race. (They turn up in PHB2, which came out after our game had started.) So orcs are ambiguous. Likewise wildens shifters and shardminds.

If 4e was your default then anything not established as diverging would by "default" be based on 4e lore

But all this means is that if orcs turn up, they're 4e orcs as described in the 4e MM. It doesn't mean that we're committed to orcs showing up.

The point is even easier to see if we look not at orcs - are fairly generic D&D monster - but (say) all the devourer variants which (for me, at least) are new to 4e. Are there all these devourer undead in the gameworld? Well, none of the players have ever raied them (I suspect that the players have never heard of devourers, unless they've looked through the MM). I haven't thought of devourers for years until this post - I looked through the MM to find a monster I'd never used and don't think about because it's not part of my intuitive "GM's palette".

Saying "We're going to play a default 4e game" can't possibly mean And the gameworld contains this monster that none of us have ever heard of or even think about except when reminded by those pages of the MM.

instead you've basically said anything not established in play based on 4e lore is well... nothing, that seems like the opposite of default.

I really don't understand why you're making such a big deal of this - but to reiterate, if an orc shows up it will be a 4e orc. If a devourer shows up it will be a devourer as per the 4e MM.

This is about permissions and expectations - stuff in the 4e MM and PHB is clearly not off limits, and the world those books present is our world. But "the world those books present" is not synomous with every single thing they say. Presentation is at least in part about audience uptake, and if no one takes up orcs, or devourers, then we're not committed to them being part of the world.

I don't think that's very confusing or ambiguous.

are your players allowed to change things about the world before they start playing? In other words if a player stated he wanted to play a dwarf but instead of them having been enslaved by giants he'd rather their history revolve around enslavement by orcs, or aboleths... would that be ok with you?

Well, it's not really part of playing a default 4e game, so it's a request to depart from the default. Enslavement by orcs would seem pretty lame, and so I can't imagine any of my players going with that. Enslavement by aboleths would be weird for different reasons, and would probably only make sense if someone wanted to play a dwarf battlemind or similar (but PHB3 wasn't out when we started our campaign, so this was never going to come up).

So to give an actual example: page 130 of the 4e PHB says that a fey pact warlokc has

forged a bargain with ancient, amoral powers of the Feywild. Some are primitive earth spirits, grim and menacing; some are capricious wood, sky, or water spirits; and others are incarnations of seasons or natural forces who roam the faerie realm like wild gods. They bestow magic that ranges from feral and savage to wondrous and enchanting.​

So I don't think it's canonical that feypact warlocks can have a pact with Corellon (by default Corellon is a god, not an amoral power of the Feywild), but that was one of the starting PCs in the game.

 

[Caliburn101]

Actual novelists establish setting as part of the process of writing. There's no reason why that can't be done in RPGing.

A pre-authored setting can undermine what might otherwise be a strength in a game: for instance, it can rule out the possibility of certain actions (for the PCs) which otherwise might have been possible.

Yes, it can be developed as the game progresses, nothing in that fact makes worldbuilding 'bad'.

Yes, it can undermine a game, just as any other factor, poorly chosen and run by the GM or players can undermine a game. Likewise, it can greatly enrich a game in a way not other factor can, because no other factor is the same as worldbuilding.

Ergo, worldbuilding isn't bad, and assuming it will be bad and then not doing it because of that is an illogical as not including other aspects of the game.

 

[Imaro]

Well, the poster to whom I replied seem to be asserting that worldbuilding in advance, presumably by the GM, is going to improve the richness of the RPG experience.

I deny that.

If you think that neither method in relation to novels has been proven to be better, then presumably you accept at least the weak version of my claim, namely, that the claim that worldbuilding in advance must enrich the RPG experience is unproven.

(Obviously I am also intending a stronger version of my claim also, but I don't think you would agree with that.)

I do agree with the statement you made above which is a totally different one from the premise of this thread, mainly that worldbuilding is bad. Which as I interpret it means that worldbuilding in general is actively harmful to playing rpg's.

As an example of a case where I found non-preauthored worldbuilding enjoyable...one of my favorite authors, Michael Moorcock, wrote his Elric stories without worldbuilding beforehand. Now I will readily admit when the original stories are read in succession there are a few consistency issues but nothing I would say is a major detraction from mye enjoyment of the stories or reading them as a whole.

Again though, I just want to clarify I in no way think worldbuilding is objectively bad, I also don't think forgoing worldbuilding is objectively bad for rpg's. It's a style thing and honestly I think it would probably be a better conversation if both sides were more open to discussing the positives as opposed to trying to prove which one is better. Starangely enough in the threads I've seen discussing this the premise always starts with worldbuilding as a negative even when disguised as trying to ascertain it's positives. Thus why I tend to defend worldbuilding vs. the non-worldbuilding style of play.

I don't know what better game and enhance gameplay mean in this context.

Obviously, perhaps tautologically, the constraints that a setting establishes in respect of action declaration will enhance the fidelity of the gameplay to the setting. But it's not a self-evident fact (as per the quote I responded to) that this is simply an addition to the strengths of a game without a strong setting. It's clearly a change, a new constraint.

Why are you assuming I am talking about a game without a strong setting? You were commenting on a pre-authored setting, right? I think it goes without saying that if you are choosing to have no setting... well restrictions around setting would serve little or no purpose since a setting doesn't exist.

Personally I find the appeal of fidelity to setting, as an element of gameplay, to be rather modest. Particularly if, by "setting", we are talking about not broad tropes, genre elements and labels (like "City of Greyhawk", "Suel Empire" etc) but are talking about the sorts of details (geographic minutiae, historical minutiae, NPC locations and motivations, etc) that one typically finds in published setting books.

And I can respect that but I don't think you could definitively state that the majority of people feel that way or even that setting fidelity is objectively bad for rpg's. That's what I think most in this thread are taking umbrage with... the statement that it is bad in a general sense for rpg's... again in a general sense.

Well, all I can report is that no one in my group found what I said "nebulous" or had any confusion. Nor has any confusion emerged in the course of play.

How long have you guys played together. I'm sure your group knows you well enought to know what is meant. I wonder if it was a group of strangers say an AL game would more explanation be needed?

I suspect that if you asked one of my players (the player of the invoker/wizard) whether there are orcs in the gameworld he would answer "yes" - because he knows there are goblins and hobgoblins, and I think he's fairly casual about distinguising them from orcs (or perhaps believes that I am, which I am in non-D&D games, and so is projecting that onto this campaign). If you asked the player of the drow sorcerer, I think he'd be more likely to say "I'm not sure." Not because he's not aware of orcs as something in the Monster Manual, but because I think he's more sensitive to what has or hasn't come out in play.

Yeah this kind of supports the whole familiarity thing...

But frankly, "Do you want to play a default 4e game?" simply doesn't mean - at least in my langauge - "Do you want to play a game in which we take for granted that everything mentioned in a 4e book is part of the gameworld?" It means do you want to play a game in which the assumption is that everything in default 4e, especially the PHB which is what you're working from as a player, is permitted; and in which the basic setting conceits are the core 4e ones.

What is default 4e. In 4e everything is core and that's what I am basing a "default" 4e game on. You seem to have, just like with worldbuilding a very narrow and specific (to you) definition of what default means. Yes your players through their familiarity with you probably instinctively understand what you mean but I don't think you could assume strangers would understand what your "default 4e" means.

If half-orcs were a PC race in the PHB then probably it would be taken for granted that there are orcs in the world - but half-orcs aren't such a race. (They turn up in PHB2, which came out after our game had started.) So orcs are ambiguous. Likewise wildens shifters and shardminds.

But all this means is that if orcs turn up, they're 4e orcs as described in the 4e MM. It doesn't mean that we're committed to orcs showing up.

I'm not sure what Orcs showing up have to do with it. What if a character decided to talk about orcs to someone going off what the MM states? Weren't there knowledge checks in 4e that told you exactly what you know about said creatures? Should he or she not assume this knowledge based on their rolls... especially in a default 4e game?

The point is even easier to see if we look not at orcs - are fairly generic D&D monster - but (say) all the devourer variants which (for me, at least) are new to 4e. Are there all these devourer undead in the gameworld? Well, none of the players have ever raied them (I suspect that the players have never heard of devourers, unless they've looked through the MM). I haven't thought of devourers for years until this post - I looked through the MM to find a monster I'd never used and don't think about because it's not part of my intuitive "GM's palette".

Saying "We're going to play a default 4e game" can't possibly mean And the gameworld contains this monster that none of us have ever heard of or even think about except when reminded by those pages of the MM.

Why can't it? The whole point of a default setting is so that we don't have to go piece by piece and affirm everything... if not then what's the point (serious question here)?

I really don't understand why you're making such a big deal of this - but to reiterate, if an orc shows up it will be a 4e orc. If a devourer shows up it will be a devourer as per the 4e MM.

I'm not making a big deal out of it I'm trying to understand this and it isn't making sense to me. So 4e monsters as written in the monster manual do exist in your world and thus are part of building your world... right? You seem to be stating that nothing exists until it shows up but there are other ways orcs or devourers could come up in the game... if no matter what they will always be 4e MM versions then I would say you're doing pre-authored worldbuilding. Now whether the players experience all aspects of said worldbuilding is a different beast all together.

This is about permissions and expectations - stuff in the 4e MM and PHB is clearly not off limits, and the world those books present is our world. But "the world those books present" is not synomous with every single thing they say. Presentation is at least in part about audience uptake, and if no one takes up orcs, or devourers, then we're not committed to them being part of the world.

I don't think that's very confusing or ambiguous.

It's only confusing or ambiguous because on the one hand you set the expectation that the 4e world is default, but then claim it's not pre-authored worldbuilding but in the same breath you're clearly stating that when introduced you will use the pre-authored lore for these creatures... how is that not ambiguous? How is that not pre-authored worldbuilding?

Well, it's not really part of playing a default 4e game, so it's a request to depart from the default. Enslavement by orcs would seem pretty lame, and so I can't imagine any of my players going with that. Enslavement by aboleths would be weird for different reasons, and would probably only make sense if someone wanted to play a dwarf battlemind or similar (but PHB3 wasn't out when we started our campaign, so this was never going to come up).

So to give an actual example: page 130 of the 4e PHB says that a fey pact warlokc has

forged a bargain with ancient, amoral powers of the Feywild. Some are primitive earth spirits, grim and menacing; some are capricious wood, sky, or water spirits; and others are incarnations of seasons or natural forces who roam the faerie realm like wild gods. They bestow magic that ranges from feral and savage to wondrous and enchanting.​

So I don't think it's canonical that feypact warlocks can have a pact with Corellon (by default Corellon is a god, not an amoral power of the Feywild), but that was one of the starting PCs in the game.

So really default can be changed depending on the needs and desires of your players... do you put limits on what can or can't be changed. Just a note this is more a tangent I am personally interested in around your gameplay style than anything to do with out larger discussion.