Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Hussar]

*snip*


To sum it up, worldbuilding is neccessary for creating and playing in game worlds, and less so for creating good stories and novels. Is there anything else here to argue?

I disagree. You don't need world building to have a campaign. Look at the Adventure Paths for example. The cities of Sasserine and Cauldron are only skeletally detailed. The Amedio Jungle is mostly a blank. The people and history of the area is painted in a very, very broad brush.

Do I need to fill in all those gaps to play Shackled City, Age of Worms or Savage Tide? I don't think so. There's enough detail there to lend verisimitude, but, it's certainly not simulationist. There's no real attempt to build an entire coherent history and culture in the area and there doesn't need to be.

I'm not sure about Age of Worms, but, the basic premise of STAP is not one of cultural exploration. Heck, 99% of the population of Far Port isn't even named, nor is there breakdown of demographics of the humans in the town. What faiths do they worship? What are their backgrounds? What do they do in their day to day lives? The modules are silent and well they should be. Who cares?

 

[Arnwyn]

Sci-fi writer M John Harrison tells you why you don't need to spend hours crafting your campaign setting:

No, he doesn't. Though his advice sounds good for writers.

From here. Discuss.

I'm a DM playing a game for recreation, not a writer.



[Edit: Whoops. Missed that there were 5 pages of this... I'm probably completely out to lunch as to where the discussion went, so never mind!]

 

[buzz]

Is there anything else here to argue?

The question of degree seems the applicable bit w/r/t RPGs. Obviously, an RPG needs a setting; the question is, I think, how much detail do you need prior to play, and what effect does said detail have on play?

(For the sake of this thread, I'm leaving aside RPGs designed to create detail in play and focusing on D&D and similar games, i.e., where the details are typically hashed out away from the table, either by the GM or by the publisher.)

I would agree, but with the addition that they also need a place to do those things, both immediate and microcosmic and expansive and macrocosmic.

Right. Like I said in the other thread, D&D gives you a lot of basic assumptions, so you can just grab a module and go if your group mostly wants to kill stuff. If they want more than that, then detailing the surrounding environs—and possibly questioning D&D's assumptions in the process—increases in priority.

 

[Hussar]

When I first saw Star Wars as a kid in the late 80's, there were other sci-fi movies that had come out in it's wake. There were flashy movies with cool special effects, there were fine novels and good stories to be told.

However, to the twelve-year-old budding geek I was, one thing that set Star Wars apart was the setting. The movies really did feel like they were taking place in a much bigger universe full of a rich history and that all the characters had their own stories, all the planets they went to had their own histories. Star Wars was more than a movie, it was an entire galaxy, even if we didn't know much about it, it always seemed like there was so much more we'd find out one day.

*snip*

A couple of points. Of course the movie felt like it had a rich history. It was ripped pretty much whole cloth from other movies.

Had Star Wars come out in 1989, I highly doubt it would have had the impact that it did in 1976. You would not have had people going back to the theater dozens of times to watch it again and again. It was a phenomenon at the time and that aura has kept it high in the collective minds of geeks everywhere despite the fact that the movies aren't really all that good.

 

[buzz]

You don't need world building to have a campaign.

You do, in the sense that you need a place where everyone agrees the in-game action is happening. I.e., a "setting." With D&D, that can be as simple as "We're using the default assumptions in the rulebooks," or it can involve the DM spending lots of time writing about elvish history.

 

[Hussar]

You do, in the sense that you need a place where everyone agrees the in-game action is happening. I.e., a "setting." With D&D, that can be as simple as "We're using the default assumptions in the rulebooks," or it can involve the DM spending lots of time writing about elvish history.

True, you need a setting. But, that's not world building. Setting is just where things happen. World building is a creative exercise to detail EVERYTHING. Or, at least that's how I interpret it.

 

[Odhanan]

Why do people here keep on harping on how this comment by Harrison applies to gaming when it never was intended to do so in the first place?

I don't necessarily agree with your point that world-building would be more "necessary" in RPGs than literature. That's just the way we've learned to run and "take possession" of them as "ours" (i.e. the act of world-building makes us own the world depicted by the RPG, even (more so) if it is a world suggested rather than fully described, as in the case of core DnD, imo).

But you make a sound point: his comment was about writing, not GMing.

His point of view applied to literature is utter crap.

Crap on the tone and way it's written, and crap on the sense because it is terribly short-sighted. You'll excuse me to quote a previous poster (I could have posted the comment about Victor Hugo, which was IMO very appropriate, but here you go):

Actually, it's not particularly good advice even for writers. It's advice to "do things my way, not your way," based on a weakness which the author lacks, but to which not all worldbuilders fall prey; i.e., building the world at the expense of the story. He'd spend his time better giving advice about how to approach his own strengths and avoid his own weaknesses - the only topics any of us can truly give useful advice on.

Tolkien would never have written the Hobbit or LOTR if he hadn't had his language- and world-building hobby. Diana Wynne Jones makes worlds the way other people make sandwiches - vivid, realistic, self-consistent worlds and series of worlds about which the reader learns just the right amount. I don't know how much work she puts into the process of creating them, and I don't need to know. The result counts. How you get there doesn't.

There are nine and sixty ways of creating tribal lays, and every single one of them is right. Some people have to have the worldbuilding and some people get bogged down in them and some people can't make them at all, and make a virtue of it. There's no point in making hard-and-fast rules about any of it. Personally, I have to overprepare for every session I DM, every public talk I give, everything I do that involves prolonged speaking. Other people can do satisfactory games at five minutes notice.

More power to everybody. Do it the way that works for you, not the way that works for somebody else.

Spot on.

People criticizing Tolkien for engaging in "needless side-trips" and considering his writing to be "bad storytelling" just don't understand the Lord of the Rings, and subsequently its main influences (which aren't literary, but poetic -in its broadest definition- and mythological, from an era preceding 'modern writing' efficiency traps and mumbo jumbo to rather depict a vivid emotional tone and image of what the story's supposed to mean, no matter how long it takes).

He can say he is not from the same "school". He can say he dislikes the LOTR and explain why. He can explain how he writes efficient stories, what works for him. That's all perfectly fine. But pretending to "know better" is just preposterous (not to mention short-sighted, pretentious, with the knee-jerk tone that goes with it).

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I had the same thought--I have a hard time with some of the posts in this thread that talk about Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan, etc. as "respected" authors, or authors whose style should be emulated. I guess they manage to sell a fair amount, and that counts for something.

No no, it's ok, you can say it: Goodkind is a total hack and more than a little depraved. I suppose someone finds his detailed descriptions of barbed demon phallus useful or interesting, but I just don't.

 

[Imaro]

True, you need a setting. But, that's not world building. Setting is just where things happen. World building is a creative exercise to detail EVERYTHING. Or, at least that's how I interpret it.

I think it's going into the realm of absurdity to think that a GM details everything when worldbuilding. Your taking an extreme viewpoint if you believe that's the meaning of world building and extremes rarely apply in day to day life. As an example of what I mean by worldbuilding is the following.

1.) A world map(or at least a map of what is generally known to exist) marked with major geographic features, kingdoms, major cities, major roads, prominent ruins/dungeons/places etc.

2.) a general culture/race sheet for PC races and the cultures that exist in my world. These generally contains beliefs, dress, art-forms, feelings towards other races/cultures, basic laws, building styles, technology level, available equipment, etc.

3.) General notes on how Prominent organizations,guilds, trade, economy, magic, etc. work within and between these kingdoms/race/cultures.

4.) Houserules(w/in game reason for establishing them if necessary)

5.) Theme and mood document. This is just a few paragraphs on what moods and themes I want this particlar campaign to convey with a brainstorming section where I list things, people, places, monsters, etc. that will convey these themes and moods.(This is ususally done with alot of player input.)

It can get more and more detailed dependant on time, especially the area where the campaign starts...but I have enough information already established to give my players answers to most of their character gen questions as well as to improvise with consistency.( I usually plan for my nextcampaign as the former is starting to wind down, so the time factor is rarely an issue).

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I think the problem I'm seeing here is that there's alot of all or nothing, black or white in the statements being made in this thread in regards to worldbuilding. If we're going to reach any type of real consensus as to how world building is benefical or not, first we all have to accept that not everyone "worldbuilds" in the same way as opposed to setting intellectual pit traps for the opposition when they question your methods.

So far it seems like there are many ways to worldbuild, which also has to do with playstyle as well. Not to pick specifically on edgewaters and Imaro but I'm just going to use this as an example:

Second, if you've been playing with the group in question for a while, you should have a good idea of what they plan to go about doing next, and prepare accordingly if you feel that it would be helpful.

then Imaro's counter:

So what if you haven't been playing for a while...Let's say first adventure out your rogue PC wants to join the Thieve's Guild. What are it's initiation requirements, it's structure, ranks, figures he would be introduced to, location, how do you get into contact with them, they're agenda, etc.

Now at my table when players are starting off with 1st level characters there's usually at least a meeting or a series of e-mails asking what the players are interested in doing. There's an understanding that there needs to be some preparation involved so this would be the time to speak up. If there were a player who was interested in joining the Theives Guild he'd need to let me know that he's at least thinking about this so that I can atleast get some notes together.

It also goes to the fact that in real life I dont have a tremendous amount of time for preparation so when I do prep I like to prep with at least a bit of focus. I mainly use prewritten adventures (right now I'm running the Age Of Worms adventure path with 5 players) because they take considerably less time to prep for me and I like the use of the visual aides that come with the adventure. Now what I tend to do is try to make things matter to the PC's so that they are invested in what's going on.

In my experience you kind of have to help guide players along especially if there is no focus, alot of the time unless they have specific goals (which can be incorporated usually along side whatever the main story is) you have to point them in at least the general direction (s) of where they might want to go. Now that's just ME. I don't claim that my way is the best way or the right way or the only way but that's how I run my games. My players don't have a problem with it, because they have input as far as things they want to do with their characters as long as they let me know in advance. If I had a player who was aware if this and then decided that they wanted to do do something else just because they felt the need to at that moment and throw off the entire game, I'd have to roll with it at the time. But I'd pull that player aside after the game and tell him straight up, if youre going to do something like that again you need to let me know what you want so that we dont throw off the game. If that's something you feel you need to do on a consistent basis then he'd need to find another DM.

bringing it back to the worldbuilding thing, for me even if youre using a module or an adventure path, there is still worldbuilding to be done. But then it's a more collabaorative effort and one that needs to allow a certain amount of respect and slack for both the DM and the players. Right now in my game one of the players, a monk, mentioned to me that he wants to look in to getting magic tatoos for his character. He told me this a while ago and since then I've worked out how his character is going start being pointed in the right direction so obtain them.

Diamond Lake is a dead end for that, but since the PC's have become friendly with a local wizard he's has mentioned that he has a friend stationed in the nearby Blackwall Keep who might be able to help. This friend plays a minor role in one of the adventures that's coming up that will provide the PC incentive to take cetain actions to recover the information that he needs. I try to do something like that with each PC, will there eventually need to be an orgin for the magic tatoos in the game world? Probably but only if the PC or any of the PC's are interested, if they are not then it doesnt matter. That's how I do my worldbuilding, a little at a time as needed by the PC's focus at the time.

I cetainly dont do it as an intellectual exercise or to edify my own ego. I do it because the PC's need to know and even then there is only so far that I'll go. Detailing the history and lineage of every dwarven clan in my gameworld would be a waste. Detailing architecture and such in my game world would be a waste, I describe the buildings in just enough detail for the PC's to know that it's different than the last ward or city that they were in. If I have to use real world equivalents or actual pictures I will, but it's not going to be more than two or three sentances of description for about a second or two fo screen time.

Bascially, the impression that I get from the superdetailed setting crowd is that they feel that they are ready to cover anything that is thrown at them because they've planned every detail ahead of time. I'd like to believe that's true, but for that to be true they'd have to be infallable and perfect which they are not. That and players have the darnedest knack for catching DM's unawares. Having detail is great and if that's your thing then go for it, but really stop trying to discount the build as you go DM's it's not fair to those of us whose method actually works for our players.