Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[AbdulAlhazred]

Speaking only for myself, and in truth never really having given any clear thought to it before this month, I've always just taken "worldbuilding" to mean the design etc. of everything that's not included in the process of designing adventures. And there's a fuzzy area between the two: the Keep in B2 or the Village in T1 sit right in that fuzzy area between adventure design and worldbuilding; in that in both cases they're part of the greater game world yet are also intended to have more or less direct influence on the actual adventure as written.

In other (and simpler) words:

The Caves of Chaos or the Moathouse: adventure design
The Keep or the Village: fuzzy area between adventure design and worldbuilding
The road and terrain between these two sites: worldbuilding.

The one place "worldbuilding" doesn't work as a term for me is when designing something bigger than one planetary world...e.g. a cosmology, or how the various planes interact, or a space-based setting covering many planets and systems. These are more like "universe building".

Lan-"out of this world"-efan

Now, I'd largely agree with you myself. I never thought the whole thing was THAT controversial! lol.

I'm willing to call the small distance between the Keep and the Caves part of the 'Adventure' simply because its expected to function as a 'space' in the adventure structure. OTOH it does exist largely for 'game logic' purposes, functionally you basically might as well have the Caves right next to the Keep.

The Keep definitely has SOME world building status IMHO, since its game function could have been accomplished more simply (as a safe place to rest and recover). I think it is still largely 'part of the adventure' in the sense that the particulars of it can matter to specific runs through B2. I'd also point out (as someone else did in the other thread IIRC) that B2 doesn't try to define ANYTHING about the Keep in relation to the rest of the world, who owns it, how it is maintained, what its purposes is, who the Castellan works for, etc.

As an interesting aside, I also argued in the other thread that these very weaknesses (as well as other more significant ones) makes it difficult to attempt to use narrativist techniques with B2. The motives of the various NPCs/monsters are unknowable given we can't understand how and why they live as they do. OTOH, as SETTING the Keep's vagueness can be helpful, since it certainly doesn't preclude inventing any particular world details you might want to use in scene framing. I think that illustrates why 'classical' technique games often crave more detail, but Story Now games seem to crave less (but not none by any means).

 

[MichaelSomething]

Overdoing World building is putting out a book on your world's history before putting out the sixth novel in your series...

 

[billd91]

Overdoing World building is putting out a book on your world's history before putting out the sixth novel in your series...

I laugh to keep from crying

 

[hawkeyefan]

If I played an RPG that had setting on the scale of the Silmarillion, I wouldn't think it was too much! It would be awesome!

Provided that the setting had been established in a particular sort of way.

That is, for my part, I'm not fussed about quantity. I'm fussed about process - how the game is played and the fiction established. (This is related to my sense, in the RPG context, that "worldbuilding" is generally understood to be something that the GM does as part of the preparation for play.)

That’s fine....but my comment was made in the context f a GM establishing that level of detail prior to play. It’s not clear from the bit you quoted, but I think in the larger context kf my entire post, it’s clear.

In which case, I would expect that you would not like that level of detail under those circumstances.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I assume you really meant 'very troll', because that [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], once you start cutting him up, he just keeps fighting!

Anyone recognize this one:

"Dim and blubbery, loathsome Drolls are able to reiterate..."

 

[Ovinomancer]

Anyone recognize this one:

"Dim and blubbery, loathsome Drolls are able to reiterate..."

Feh, being droll is very far from being dim and blubbery. You may take this as a compliment if you wish.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Feh, being droll is very far from being dim and blubbery. You may take this as a compliment if you wish.

No need to reply if you don't recognize the quote. It's pretty obscure.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No need to reply if you don't recognize the quote. It's pretty obscure.

I thought I did, but now I'm unsure. It's a parody of an OD&D ir Basic typo in the troll description, yeah?

 

[billd91]

I thought I did, but now I'm unsure. It's a parody of an OD&D ir Basic typo in the troll description, yeah?

Probably from one of the April Dragon Magazine articles. There was often some April Foolin’. I’m pretty sure at least on or two got included in a Best of the Dragon compilations back in the day. This one is just familiar enough I may be remembering from one of those publications.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I thought I did, but now I'm unsure. It's a parody of an OD&D ir Basic typo in the troll description, yeah?

If you want to know:

[sblock]...it's from an April issue Dragon magazine article that presented various types of players as monsters. In addition to the Droll, it had the Umpyre, various forms of Weregamers - 'Wererommel' is the only one I remember at the moment, it's movement was 'overextended' ... [/sblock]

...but, yeah, if I'm not a Droll I probably at least have Ring of Reiteration.