Why Worldbuilding is Bad
- Thread starter I'm A Banana
- Start date
Raven Crowking
First Post
LostSoul said:
I would agree with Ourph, and add "Pay attention to your players." They will let you know what interests them, and what does not. IOW, if you follow the practices of good DMing, your world building will be an asset. If not, not.
RC
Imaro
Legend
Ourph said:
QFT. It seems as if those opposing worldbuilding feel it has to be a static, all or nothing thing. In my experience if I see a way to make something tie into the actual gameplay or characters more, I go hith it and revise my setting. On the other hand I feel certain ground rules in the beginning help player creativity and focus, especially in designing their characters. Cause No, I don't want any TMNT, Transformers, or laser-toting cyborgs in my fantasy campaign. Well maybe a Teenage Mutant Ninja Tortle, maybe...
LostSoul said:
By writing down only the good stuff.
Unless of course you're not of infinite god-like intelligence (like the blogger is), and you don't know what the good stuff is right away, in which case the exercise of writing stuff down might jog other ideas or inspire other ideas that you actually use for adventures or stories. Or you might come back to it later and find a way to make it interesting.
Then again, if one is sufficiently afraid to write anything down or do anything without Harrison's permission, it's better to ask him for good ideas.
Only this doesn't happen, because you've already invested way too much time, effort and creative energy in the Empire of Gzork-Grunk and it's army of giant psionic rabbits. Too bad, the adventure will have to cleave to the "realities" of Gzork-Grunk, and the players complaining that the concept is silly will have to suck it or find a new campaign...because by this stage you're far too emotionally invested in this part of your world to part with it.
In other words, your statement is theoretical, and not really what happens in reality IME. It's a pity - if only DMs could be convinced to tie their egos and sense of creative accomplishment to the campaign adventure arc and not the world, then D&D would be a whole lot better I think.
I mean, let's face it - it's almost unheard of for DMs to come to the players and say, "I've created all the adventures of this campaign arc" with the setting an afterthought, rather than "we're going to play in my new homebrew world", with the adventures an afterthought. But no, egoes and energies are tied to the worldbuilding, first and foremost, and to the detriment of the meat of the game - the actual adventure.
Last edited:
Kahuna Burger
First Post
As a side track on this sidetrack, I would not have this happening in my game. Not that I wouldn't allow a warforged ninja in a 7th Sea setting, but if I agreed to it, I would be introducing warforged (and ninja) into the setting. Not a lot of them, and the PCs might never actually meet another, but all but the most parochial npcs would understand basicly what he was and there would be no constant snoring.Raven Crowking said:
If the player is suggesting a warforged specifly BECAUSE he wants to be completely unique and strange and have ever encounter start with 10 minutes of "I get to explain myself (again)" the player gets a breif lesson in ensemble storytelling and another character sheet.
(full disclosure, I have designed strange and "unique" characters, as a way to try to get any screen time in a group heavily dominated by one or two strong personalities, but I have tried to put it behind me as lessons of my misspent youth.
)Oh, I see....so I suppose that now you're going to tell off Imaro for QFT'ing your advice, or is it only okay to comment on your advice when the comment's in agreement with it?
That would be why you've phrased the original comment as if it were a question, as if it's the first time it's occurred to you, then? In any case, as I've suggested earlier, if a DM does a lot of worldbuilding (as many do), the chances of said DM altering or disposing of a major part of the setting after the fact is pretty remote. They're far too creatively invested in the setting as is, by that stage, and it's easier to compromise the needs of the adventure to meet the needs of the setting, if much thought is paid to the adventure at all.
rounser said:Oh, I see....so I suppose that now you're going to tell off Imaro for QFT'ing your advice, or is it only okay to comment on your advice when the comment's in agreement with it?
You were responding to my post as if I were saying "The world is perfect because everybody makes this choice", which isn't the case. It seems to me that you don't disagree with the comment, you just think not enough people are taking my advice (which is something I'm in total agreement with
).No, I phrased it as a question because I wasn't sure if that was the type of advice LostSoul was looking for.
:edit to add:
The truth is, I'm about exactly the opposite of what you are describing as a worldbuilding GM. I have stacks of legal pads in my office at home with setting stuff that I've written for my Warhammer campaign (either original stuff or modifications of official setting material) and only about 10% of it ever gets the "two week approval". "Two week approval" means I put it aside and look at it two weeks later. With 90% of it I reread it and say something along the lines of "What was I thinking? This is drivel. There's no way this is making it into the campaign!". It's never occured to me that the 90% is "wasted effort". Without the 90% bad stuff that gets written, the 10% that's good wouldn't exist. Plus the 90% bad isn't ALL bad. Sometimes good a idea is just badly executed. Rewriting is as important as writing for a good author/DM.
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
rounser said:
Of course. When he started writing the adventures, perforce, he had to write setting elements to act as the stage for those adventures. And he probably didn't want his players to scream "railroad"!
Similar Threads
