Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Raven Crowking]

To be entirely blunt?

Of course. What's the value of an opinion if you aren't 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.

Nor would you really need to.

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.

That's entirely the way that they were meant to be used. And, in fact, entirely the way that they were used IMC by the majority of players. Some stuff to help generate character hooks, and some world-based flavour.

RC

 

[The Shaman]

Yet, how many people complain about how published settings are so over detailed that they cannot fit their own ideas into them? How many people refuse to buy anything from a given setting for exactly that reason? Why do generic modules sell far better than setting modules?

If detailed setting made for better gaming, wouldn't everyone be on board with published settings? Wouldn't generic modules, or gaming books in general take a back seat to setting dependent ones?

Because many referees create their own settings? Because generic modules require less work to drop into a setting than one written for a specific setting?

Is Harrison saying that every story should be like Waiting for Godot?

Bonus points for the Beckett reference.

But, every story, and I believe every campaign, should put plot (or adventure if you prefer) far ahead of setting.

And for games that have neither plot nor prescribed adventures . . . ?

Introduce enough setting to set your campaign in a place that is "not here", but, don't presume that your players will care about Elven tea ceremonies.

Has this really been a serious problem for anyone? I mean, this seems like a total strawman, an invented problem to make a point.

What's your "elven tea ceremony" story, Hussar? What world-building detail specifically did your referee introduce into the game that brought the whole thing to a crashing halt?

 

[The Shaman]

*snip*

As noted upthread, I have played and refereed Traveller the same way - my experience is that the game is richer when the prep goes in ahead of time. YMMV.

Funny that scifi worlds are generalized and worlds of myth and magic are often defined in exacting detail.

I've noticed the same thing, and frankly I think that it's a weakness of some sci-fi authors and gamers.

 

[Hussar]

And for games that have neither plot nor prescribed adventures . .

All games have prescribed adventures. Even if it only consists of random encounter tables, they are all prescribed. Even if the details are created as you go, you still have to create the adventure before the players can play in it. It doesn't matter if the details were created a week ago or five minutes, all adventure creation occurs beforehand. Always.

Has this really been a serious problem for anyone? I mean, this seems like a total strawman, an invented problem to make a point.

How about DMPC's? NPC's created by the DM to further the setting - to show off the setting that is - that are far more powerful than the PC's and completely immune to the PC's actions. There's a pretty good example of a DM's worldbuilding heavily impacting upon the game. When the DM's setting elements are completing the adventure, and acting as stars of the game, I would say that there can be a problem with DM's being too much in love with their own work.

 

[Greg K]

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.

Well, RC just saved me a lot of time. I am in complete agreement.

 

[The Shaman]

All games have prescribed adventures. Even if it only consists of random encounter tables, they are all prescribed. Even if the details are created as you go, you still have to create the adventure before the players can play in it. It doesn't matter if the details were created a week ago or five minutes, all adventure creation occurs beforehand. Always.

Random encounter tables are the same thing as a prescribed adventures now? That's an interesting conflation of ideas. Taking a page from the Midget's playbook, Hussar?

How about DMPC's? NPC's created by the DM to further the setting - to show off the setting that is - that are far more powerful than the PC's and completely immune to the PC's actions. There's a pretty good example of a DM's worldbuilding heavily impacting upon the game. When the DM's setting elements are completing the adventure, and acting as stars of the game, I would say that there can be a problem with DM's being too much in love with their own work.

And this is a problem that results from world-building?

No, uh-uh, sorry, but I gotta call horse manure on that one. That's bad refereeing which has nothing specifcially to do with world-building.

So, no actual examples of "elven tea ceremonies," Hussar? Color me not surprised.

 

[Ourph]

I feel this is untrue. Even heavily railroaded games have extensive world development in some cases, detailing the history of Kingdom X (that PC's never learn) and the ecology of Monster Z (which is never relevant to the play). Heck, the original complaint was about worldbuilding in fiction, which is probably one of the harshest railroads there is.

I think you misunderstood my point. I never said heavily railroaded games can't also be heavily worldbuilt.

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.

They can't walk two feet to the left because the dungeon has walls.
Don't you think that point of view is a little restrictive? By your definition of worldbuilding, the DM defining any information about the setting is railroading because it limits the PCs in some ways. There can't really be a useful discussion when you define everything in absolutes.

And open-sandbox games can be even better without much worldbuilding or pre-game prep. It makes it so that even if the PC's spend all day shopping at the market, you can inject some drama and tension on the fly, rather than relying on there being some proactive element in the party that night (as a for instance).

Are you really suggesting the game would be better if the DM came to the game knowing no more about the setting than the players?

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I really don't buy that a particular race is necessarily breaking of an entire genre. Elves have been fleet-footed nomads, undead-worshiping near-necromancers, and immortal Fair Folk, depending on the context of the world. Whereas TMNT and Greyhawk are obviously trying for different ends, "elf" doesn't imply any particular world context.

But even laying that aside, it's still saying "you must run on these tracks and you are forbidden to go where I do not allow you." It's saying it at character generation rather than in actual play, but it's the same limiting of options to run down a small selection of possible tracks. Again, not that that's a necessarily negative thing.

As for Thorpton, I probably didn't go far enough in the description. If the DM won't let you cross the Ocean of Sessler (whatever the PC's try to do), he's wearing a conductor's hat. He's saying "stay on track, don't jump away to another continent." If he lets you cross the ocean with ADVENTURE, then you're right, it's probably not railroading.

Are you really suggesting the game would be better if the DM came to the game knowing no more about the setting than the players?

Not that it would be, just that it could be, depending on the usual factors (namely, DM and player preference for it). In the same way that massive detailed info-worship is fun for some DM's and players, the opposite (I don't know until I make it up, my only rule is that I can't contradict myself) is fun for others. I've seen it work. I've worked it myself. You don't need to know anything about the setting. Indeed, it can even work when the players know *more* about the setting than the DM. Tell them to develop their homeland, their village, their nation, why they are the race and class that they are, tell them to think of a reason to work together, to meet, and just get used to saying "yes" and pushing the buttons the players made with the problem-causing ways of every DM out there.

Might not be your style, o'course, but that's okay. It's just showing that preliminary DM setting detail is not always a requisite component for a good game of D&D.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, RC just saved me a lot of time. I am in complete agreement.

Sorry.

 

[Greg K]

How about DMPC's? NPC's created by the DM to further the setting - to show off the setting that is - that are far more powerful than the PC's and completely immune to the PC's actions. There's a pretty good example of a DM's worldbuilding heavily impacting upon the game.

Nice try, but no dice. DMPCS are not a concept limited to world builders or furthering the setting. It actually has nothing to with world builders. It is commonly used to refer to an NPC that the DM runs as a personal PC in his or her own game and, as can be found over at the WOTC boards, can be found in any approach.
Now, as for NPCs overshadowing the pcs, that is just bad DMing. Its okay to have people in the world whom are on par or more powerful than PCs. However, in the end, the characters are the heroes.