Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[rounser]

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"!

Couple of comments:

1) Most DMs tend to write world first, adventures second. If that's not the case, then the timbre of this thread has changed dramatically, because that's what seems to have been implied for the last 12 pages. And that's what we see again and again on EnWorld threads - "here's the new world I'm designing".

Why? Because worldbuilding is fun and rewarding. Writing adventures is too much like hard work, whereas writing about races and empires that never were are not only involves game design tweaks to stamp your trademark on D&D (fun) and is epic in scope (ego), but work up enthusiasm for what the campaign might be like, one day (daydreaming).

The fact that the DM probably never gets around to writing the stuff that would actually make the rubber meet the road (the adventures) is overlooked by wishful thinking generated by the enthusiasm that worldbuilding can provide.

2) Railroading is extremely common, as hinted at by the post on the last page about PCs having free rein to visit the planet they like, and the confusion that generated. Like putting worldbuilding first and foremost, it's a bad habit that seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

Why? Because writing a campaign with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed is a massive amount of work, even if you railroad it from start to finish. So that leaves two approaches - the unrailroaded improvised adventure which often falls into cliche or "beige" predictability with a lack of meaningful detail, or the "here's tonight's adventure" railroad. The other option (crossed t's and dotted i's, matrix campaign arc format) is way too much work with or without worldbuilding, so these two approaches are how DMs generally seem to get by IME.

If you have created campaigns with a matrix format (i.e. unrailroaded) with the level of detail of a published module, then that makes you a rare bird indeed. The usual compromise is either to worldbuild in detail and run improvised adventures from a few notes, or to run a self-prepared or published module that is fully written up and railroad the PCs into it.

I think that the heavy worldbuilding, improvised adventures approach is flawed, and that the self-indulgent and dubiously useful worldbuild-in-detail bit can be to a large degree removed, with more attention and effort applied to those scanty adventure notes....or if taking the "here's tonight's adventure" approach, lessen the time spent on worldbuilding so that there's time to present more than one hook and adventure for the night's play.

 

[howandwhy99]

I like to start with the original Dungeoncraft's 60x60 mile bottom-up, plus top-down approach. Keep on the borderlands being a good example. Pretty much anything could be dropped in that wilderness, appended to the caves, included in the keep after the game has started. Of course, this shouldn't happen after the players have explored a particular area unless the addition is a result of others in the world. But such space does allow flexibility; flexibility a completed world generally doesn't include. The Forgotten Realms as a setting is a good example. It is a Known world by my own terms, so being complete isn't a problem. Having a "completed" unknown world isn't really one either. My main point is, while worldbuilding is absolutely necessary to run a plotless game, constraints do exist in completed worlds simply because new creations are difficult to add. Something always exists rather than blank canvas. Alterations are an exception of course, but why then spend time detailing something only to change it before it's seen?

I think that the heavy worldbuilding, improvised adventures approach is flawed, and that the self-indulgent and dubiously useful worldbuild-in-detail bit can be to a large degree removed, with more attention and effort applied to those scanty adventure notes....or if taking the "here's tonight's adventure" approach, lessen the time spent on worldbuilding so that there's time to present more than one hook and adventure for the night's play.

Rounser, railroading has been extremely common only since 2nd edition. Before that worlds were created first, adventures not at all. They were modules then. I'm actually fine with adventure plots being created moment to moment - as long as only the PC players are doing it. It isn't "on the fly" or improvised when the PCs arrive. There is never a plot created by the DM ever.

 

[rounser]

Rounser, railroading has been extremely common only since 2nd edition.

I've seen little change in D&D gaming style since 1st and OD&D. It's been either railroad your way through something prescribed like Temple of Elemental Evil or a homebrewed adventure equivalent, or improvise your way over a map through off-the-cuff adventure based at best on on some scribbled notes. There's varying shades of grey between these two extremes, but that seems to be the meat of it.

The latter is a lot harder to do well than the former, seemingly, because unless your DM is a master of improvisation the result is likely to be either a rather "beige" boring game where you can predict that the goblin lair you've just stumbled across is just going to be huts around a campfire, or a completely unhinged, stream-of-conciousness game where the goblins are in the middle of summoning (flip flip) Orcus at the time you arrive and the chief's guard have (flip flip flip) wands of wonder, and a magic wishing fountain is in one of the huts. And the chief has bat wings, and is riding his pet otyugh. Roll for initiative.

That's extreme examples, but the boring improv game or wacky improv game seems to be typical results. (3E seems to encourage much more of the former than the latter simply because it's much more complex, so I won't be surprised if recent players of the game haven't run into it and don't know what I'm referring to). To be clear, I'm not really a fan of boring improv or wacky improv, I'm just suggesting that they exist as play styles.

I'm actually fine with adventure plots being created moment to moment - as long as only the PC players are doing it. It isn't "on the fly" or improvised when the PCs arrive. There is never a plot created by the DM ever.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

And this gets at Harrison's deeper point about the frightening psychology of people so invested in info-worship. Which, yeah, is over-stated to make a point, but is can be seen in the reality that many DMs would rather kick a few players out than change the world in response to what the group wanted.

My world (my game) is sacred. You are not. Cleave to my world or go home.

That's pretty much the exact same thing that writers who pump in too much worldbuilding are saying to their readers: I will tell you how it is, you will follow along, my world is sacred, read about it or you can't get to the fun adventure.

I'm 90% positive that's a bad thing in literature, but probably only 40% likely to say that it's still an inherently bad thing in D&D. Cuz, after all, there's a lot of people who play D&D who are in it for the express purpose of info-worship, and a lot of them are DMs, so being a great clomping nerd about their world is a lot of fun for them, and most of the time, helps to shore up the game. It can still go horrirbly wrong, but it seems to do so significantly less in D&D than in literature.

If I have to read a paragraph about elven tea ceremonies in a novel, I skip ahead (you know, like when I had skipped anything about Tom Bombadil or the Barrow Wights or that scene with Galadriel and the elves, or anything having to do with Aragorn's ancestry in LotR, because it didn't matter). If I read the same paragraph in a game book, I imagine the PC's being invited to an elven tea ceremony where they must successfully navigate a foreign culture's many pitfalls to avoid irking the elven king and provoking the entire elven armada to unleash their powerful magical doomsday device.

However, I do think that the notion that good D&D games require hours or years of world prep needs to be crucified in short order. And that if no one is in the mood for a political game of cat and elf-mouse, the elven tea ceremony scene gets to be shelved in favor of something else. And that big blocks of irrelevant world history don't necessarily make a setting any better by themselves.

 

[Hussar]

Agreed.

But it is conversely true that if your worldbuilding notes help to devise a really cool, dramatic event or action, or to build up player expectations when they get to a place they have long heard of, or to build up player excitement when they defeat the BBEG who they have been hearing about since day one, then worldbuilding is serving your needs.

Worldbuilding that serves your needs = good.
Worldbuilding that neither serves nor hampers your needs = neutral
Worldbuilding that hampers your need = evil. Get your pitchforks.

I can agree with this. The trick, as LostSoul points out, is figuring out what goes with what.

And, as Rounser points out, DM's can get very, very tied to their campaigns. Take the reaction to the Warforged Ninja. You can get around RC's problems pretty quickly. First, ninja's have disguise as a class skill meaning that it may actually never come up after the first time. Second, it's no different than having a Druid with an animal companion in the party - yet I don't see threads screaming about how someon wants to play a druid. Third, it will really depend on the campaign. If it's high adventure on the seas with lots of combat, then it likely won't be a problem whatsoever. If it's a deep intrigue game, it might be more problematic, but, not necessarily.

But, because DM's get so fixated on what their campaigns should look like (ie. emotionally tied to world building) they cannot imagine any flexibility to accomodate ideas.

The Shaman mentioned that his campaign world had no dragons, thus he couldn't run Age of Worms. Never mind that dragons only feature in two or three of the modules, how hard is it really to change dragon to some sort of creature that does fit? I mean, come on, out of the thousands of monsters out there, not one single critter can fill in the Dragon encounter?

Yet, he closes off the possibility completely. "There are no dragons in my world. I cannot run this adventure in my world" is a perfect example of six page elven tea ceremonies.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*

Rounser, railroading has been extremely common only since 2nd edition. Before that worlds were created first, adventures not at all. They were modules then. I'm actually fine with adventure plots being created moment to moment - as long as only the PC players are doing it. It isn't "on the fly" or improvised when the PCs arrive. There is never a plot created by the DM ever.

Sorry, ballocks. Not true.

Dragonlance were 1e adventures.

The adventure that was included in the old Basic book had level locked doors.

The Slavers would actually raise dead dead PC's to adventure in A4. (not even death can get you off those rails)

Railroading has most certainly occured in all editions.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, because DM's get so fixated on what their campaigns should look like (ie. emotionally tied to world building) they cannot imagine any flexibility to accomodate ideas.

...hmm...

"Because DM's get so fixated on what their story should be like (ie: emotionally tied to plot) they cannot imagine any flexibility to accommodate ideas."

"Context," meet "Railroad." "Pot," meet "Kettle."

Tomayto, Tomahto.

Yet, he closes off the possibility completely. "There are no dragons in my world. I cannot run this adventure in my world" is a perfect example of six page elven tea ceremonies.

Very nice. That's quite blatantly world-building getting in the way of running an adventure, of a certain limit to creativity.

Of course, I'm still only about 40% sure that it might be a problem. Or, at least, it's only a problem if someone really wants to play in Age of Worms, but the DM of this dragon-less world forbids it absolutely and won't let someone else run it.

Which, I'm guessing, doesn't happen that often.

I'd also say that railroading (in moderation) isn't necessarily a problem, either. A lot of these aren't problems within well-functioning groups, though they might be in cross-group pollination.

 

[Hussar]

I was asked for examples of Elven Tea ceremonies. While I admit I don't have that particular one on hand, I do recall a few others.

One DM had decided that plate mail was unavailable in the campaign. Not because you couldn't buy it here, but because it hadn't been invented yet. She had a certain veiw of Medieval technologies. When I pointed out to her that plate armor predated chain mail by centuries, and that my priest with Armorer NonWeapon Proficiency should probably be able to make the armor, even if we couldn't buy it, she refused. Her idea was that plate armor, because it had a better AC, must have been invented later. Even when I showed her an encyclopedia and proved her wrong, she still would not back down.

Now, here's an example, and a fairly minor one, that caused all sorts of fuss at the table (which, honestly, I could have handled better myself :/ ) all because someone had become enamored to her campaign concept.

 

[rounser]

"Because DM's get so fixated on what their story should be like (ie: emotionally tied to plot) they cannot imagine any flexibility to accommodate ideas."

"Context," meet "Railroad." "Pot," meet "Kettle."

These are not equivalent, because the game's about the adventure, not the setting. They do not have equal footing, because "the play's the thing". The inability of some to see this is part of the fundamental reasons why this thread exists in the first place. If they are equivalent to you, then you're the kind of person that the blogwriter is talking about.

YES, the setting should cleave to the needs of the adventure! Of course it should, it's just a backdrop to the action, and the action is the adventures. Strip it back to the bedrock and rebuild it to support the structure of the adventures, if needed, because that's all it's a foundation for! Unless supporting the Great American Fantasy Novel (someday) is in the wings, which is another D&D worldbuilding malady entirely...

It's even implied in the word "setting" - a "setting" for what, exactly? Setting-worship in it's own right? Bowing down at the altar of the DM's clever worldbuilding? Seemingly so!

 

[Hussar]

If you want a good example of World Building Gone Bad (TM), take a look at DM of the Rings

There's pretty much exactly what Harrison is talking about.

KM, I'm a little confused. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?