Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Raven Crowking]

It is also true that worldbuilding becomes railroading at a certain point -- it limits the PC's options in the scenario. They can't go to Thorpton because the Ocean of Sessler is in the way and the shipbuilder's union is on strike so no ships are sailling. They can't be elves because elves don't exist in the world. Etc.

I think you conflate context with railroading.

Your example about elves is no more railroading than claiming that you cannot play a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle in Greyhawk. Your example about Thorpton certainly means that the most obvious, easy solution to reaching the PC's desire is out of bounds, but it is certainly not a hard limit. They could try to hire a scab, buy a ship, end the strike, buy a teleport, etc., etc.

Using the term "railroading" for things like this makes it meaningless, IMHO.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I prefer this method myself actually. I'm tired of players handing me three page backstories for a 1st level character. Backstory is what you get looking back on your 7th level character, not first. Unfortunately, I seem to be a minority in this position and I've had DM's flat out tell me to that the character I created was boring because I didn't detail a huge background.

I actually agree with this. It is far easier to for myself (at least) to play off one or two strong hooks than reams of material, either as a DM or a player. However, it is easier to pick a few strong hooks (IMHO) if you understand the setting than if you don't.

I think that we sometimes underestimate just how much the tropes of D&D constitute a shared world-building background.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again, adding details to a character isn't world building. Those details are used immedietely in the game. Or in the book.

And Tolkein didn't world-build, either, because all of his work was either used in the book, or doesn't appear in the book.

Where did this definition of world-building come from, anyway?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Once upon a time, when gaming, our games had almost no setting. Look at Keep on the Borderlands. There's a mini-setting that's skeletal, yet is one of the most enduring modules ever published.

And, yet, it is a setting that has some keen details that have crept into many campaigns (and other modules) over the years, such as Bree-Yark, the black-and-red stone of the evil temple, and the bugbear/catnip connection.

Sure, a lot of the Keep was a blank slate to help the DM to fit it into the type of world he wanted to create, but there was also a fine selection of DM advice in that module, and that advice didn't say "keep the Keep blank".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Not necessarily. They're, y'know, *limiting*, and that itself can be a bad thing in many numerous ways, but it isn't always and doesn't have to be, especially if a group just doesn't care if they're always telling the same type of story at the table.

If playing within the context of a setting forces you to always tell the same type of story at the table, I pity you, man.

 

[Rolzup]

Whatever works for an individual GM is fine -- I've personally found that exhaustive world-building is largely a wasted effort, and actually much prefer for interested PCs to do some building of their own. I like for *them* to tell *me* about their character's homeland, for example.

Not everyone is into that, of course, and that's fine. But for those who are, it helps them get involved in the game and the world.

But, see, you gotta be realistic. I wrote up a very short background for my current game...three pages, the last of which was just important NPCs. That was a year ago, and since then I've found that only two of the players read the whole thing.

My own wife, I might add, was not one of them....

And hell, I've been guilty of the same thing. A game that I was in briefly started out with a 22 page PDF that detail the history of the world and the current political setup. I skimmed it. Just couldn't hold my interest, I'm afraid.

Short, sweet, and simple is the best way to hold player interest, I've found. Work with the cliches, either by using them or defying them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A writer, OTOH, has to be aware that his works are intended for a larger audience. A player or DM as well. Sure, it's fine to write up a six page backstory for your character, but, if it never comes up in play, who cares? You just forced the DM to read it, which he may not want to do for one.

If you're not going to use anything that doesn't come up in play, why are you forced to read those six pages? I would say that, otherwise, your methodology is perfectly valid. If a player wants you to use the hooks (s)he provides, then it is up to that player to make sure that they are understood to be important to that character. Likewise, if the DM wants the PCs to take something seriously, (s)he had to demonstrate that it is taken seriously in the world.

Really, and I think RC and I agree on this point, the problem is one of scale.

We do, but I don't agree with your narrow definition of worldbuilding as a prejorative that does but doesn't make it into the narrative.

There's nothing wrong with spending hours and hours on world building in and of itself. However, if the adventure suffers because the DM spent that time detailing trivia rather than focusing on the adventure, then it is wasted time. If the rest of the players are snoring in the corner because someone wants to have special treatment based on their five page fanfic, that's a problem.

I have mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, I don't think that the DM is obligated to run a game. On the other hand, if you're going to run a game, why would you not want to run the best game that you can? This is one area where I think that market forces are the great equalizer -- if your game sucks, you're probably sitting home alone.

I do believe that, in the social contract of my groups at least, players are obligated to share time (though not equal time) for hooks based on various character backgrounds. Frankly, the game is more enjoyable (IMHO, at least) when the characters have things that they care about besides just the next level, or gold piece, or magic item. OTOH, some character backgrounds are just attempts to usurp the game from the rest of the group.

As an example of the latter, imagine that you're trying to run a 7th Sea campaign, and one player wants to play a warforged ninja. He even comes up with an encapsulated backstory to explain why he's a warforged ninja in a 7th Sea setting. Pretty soon, the rest of the players are snoring in the corner because the DM has to constantly deal with the logical reactions of characters in 7th Sea to the "special" character.

I feel your pain, man.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, is this an example of too much or too little worldbuilding?

IYHO, of course.

 

[Rolzup]

To be entirely blunt?

I'd print out the first two and keep them as references, to refer to as needed. They're short; I'd read them, but I'd be unlikely to retain much.

(My memory is weird that way. I've got the entire run of Bloom County memorized, but I have to rack my brains to remember my wife's birthday.)

The longer one, I would skim for the bits relevant to my character concept. Again, I'd print it out and keep it close to hand so that I could look things up when needed, but there's simply no way the details would stick with me unless they saw a lot of use in play.

If it were a book? Sure, I'd read the whole thing. I mean, if I liked your style and the plot held my interest. But for a game, I just don't want to do that.

 

[The Shaman]

People have been arguing about metaplot--in Dragonlance, in Forgotten Realms, in the World of Darkness--for as long as I can remember. So there are, at the least, a lot of folks who think that some published RPG settings do in fact dictate plot. These people may not be entirely right, but metaplot does foreclose some options; it is a constraint. A setting can make certain stories impossible, and maybe enable stories that, up to that point, had been possible nowhere else (and that, of course, would be the ultimate justification for world building).

"Metaplot" is still plot, not setting: one can ignore it, or take it as a snapshot in time to use as a starting point from which to diverge from that timeline.

Traveller is a example of this: the metaplot that began in 1979 saw the Third Imperium wage a war against the Zhodani along the spinward frontier, break apart during the Rebellion, regress under the effects of Virus, and now the rise of the Fourth Imperium as the star systems of Charted Space struggle toward recovery - we've also seen two historical eras brought to the table as well, the Interstellar Wars of the First and Second Imperiums and the founding of the Third following the Long Night. (And there's also a diverging campaign setting in which the Rebellion never occurs, and the Third Imperium continues undimmed.) There's a tremendous amount of history from which to draw, multiple points on that timeline in which to game - and no limitations whatsoever if a referee chooses to diverge from that history at any point.

In our Traveller game, we began in 1101, and no decision has been made on whether or not we're going to follow the metaplot with respect to the Rebellion, should we reach 1116 in the course of play.

If the referee and the players do want to stay close to a canon metaplot, then you're correct that metaplot changes to the setting may constrain some of their in-game plot choices. The same is true of referee and player generated changes to the setting in any game, however - if the players fail to stop the BBEG from unleashing her ultimate weapon, then the game may suddenly become post-apocalyptic . . .

But the thing is, say you disagree with that assumption: all you've done is confirm Harrison's point. If setting really is irrelevant to plot, if the same plot can be reproduced in more or less any setting whatever, then setting, beyond what plot demands, is wasted energy as far as plot is concerned, and subjecting your reader to too much world building would fall under the rubric of "I’ve suffered for my art, now it’s your turn."

This assumes that all settings and all plots are equally engaging - I think we can agree that's not necessarily the case.

A thoughtful post, Wayside.