Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[The Shaman]

The Shaman mentioned that his campaign world had no dragons, thus he couldn't run Age of Worms.

Hussar, that is not what I said.

Here's what I actually wrote (post 352):

My 3.0 setting did not have dragons. How easily would "Age of Worms" drop into my game?

In thread after thread you repeatedly misquote me, other posters, rules, adventures, and literature - I want to believe that you're not maliciously attempting to misrepresent and mislead, so I have to ask, do you have some sort of learning disability as it relates to the written word?

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by rounser
It seems to me that Paizo's adventure paths serve as a large nail in the coffin of the argument that "the world building matters", because they're so easily ported from FR to Eberron to GH. That should tell you something very important about how redundant most worldbuilding is, and about the amount of effort required to write just the adventure components of a fully fleshed out campaign.
Uh, sorry, but no - this ignores the fact that all bog-standard D&D games begin with quite a catalog of shared assumptions, which gives adventure portability home-field advantage.

My 3.0 setting did not have dragons. How easily would "Age of Worms" drop into my game?

So, you refute Rounser by emphatically stating that your setting deviates from bog standard assumptions and then ask how easily Age of Worms would drop into your game and then assume that everyone thinks that, what, it would be easy to drop it into your game?

If you cannot state what you mean, then perhaps a writing course would be helpful?

 

[Raven Crowking]

...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.

KM, stop saying things that make sense. I'm not supposed to be agreeing with you!

Rounser and Hussar, I'm glad that I haven't had anything near your "luck of the draw" with the game. I haven't actually seen a raging egomaniacal DM yet. I tend to think that's just an Internet myth.

 

[Raven Crowking]

One DM had decided that plate mail was unavailable in the campaign.

Sorry, but this is a player problem, not a DM problem. The DM is allowed to decide that something is not available in her campaign.

Please see the entry on "player entitlement".

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

So, if your players enjoy exploring the world presented to them, this is wrongbadfun?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Three notes:

(1) This isn't an example of bad; it's an example of funny as hell.

(2) Second, I will note that 90% of the jokes are about the DM following a prescribed plot and/or adventure that removes potential rewards. There is the DM-NPC thing with Gandalf, but that's not a worldbuilding issue -- as has been demonstrated amply already.

(3) By your definition of world-building, Tolkein didn't world-build, so it would be difficult to use this as an example in any event.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, you refute Rounser by emphatically stating that your setting deviates from bog standard assumptions and then ask how easily Age of Worms would drop into your game and then assume that everyone thinks that, what, it would be easy to drop it into your game?

If you cannot state what you mean, then perhaps a writing course would be helpful?

It seems relatively clear to me that The Shaman is saying (in these diverse posts):

(1) There are standard world-building assumptions in D&D that people tend to use, whether or not they recognize them for what they are.

(2) One of these elements is dragons.

(3) AoW uses Dragotha, and therefore takes place in a world with dragons.

(4) If your world doesn't have dragons, you will have to change parts of the adventure to meet non-standard world-building assumptions.

(5) That doesn't mean it is impossible to do, as rounser's post suggests.

Also, I would add, that not being able to play Precanned Adventure #6 has nothing to do with the creativity of anyone at the table. Plonking down a precanned requires, and demonstrates, no special creativity.


RC

 

[Imaro]

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!

Actually I believe the game should be about one's players. Depending on their prefrences then either "setting" or "adventures" should be the main focus of your work. The "setting" should cleave to the needs of the group, both GM and players to create a balance. The action is whatever aspect of the game your PC's enjoy. IMHO I have seen a boring setting ruin a game as quickly as an ill-made adventure.

What about "sense of wonder", are you telling me no GM can make a world that's fascinating enough in it's own right that the players will be interested in it? I've seen certain players seek out and remember parts of a world's structure, history, etc. that have bearing on their characters, this was originally suppose to be the purpose of PrC's in a way, to both flesh out your world and give PC's a meaningful way to interact in it.

I notice alot of people posting about "world-building" limiting creativity, well I have a question...don't the rules limit creativity as well. Their built upon assumptions, like the fact that a 1st level fighter can't shoot laser beams out his eyes(You're limiting my creativity) or that a wizard casts only a certain amount of spells(but I want a wizard to cast all his spells at least 3x a day, cause that's my concept). My point is in any game w/rules their is an inherent limit on creativity, unless you throw the rules out...and then you aren't playing that particular game anymore. I believe in the same way a player has a right to make the character he wants within the confines of the rules, the GM has a right to create the setting. Should player prefrence and playstyles be considered? Certainly, but I would hope a GM is doing that already. In the same way that a player creates a character to facilitate the type of role he wants to play, a GM should build their world to facilitate the moods, themes and types of adventures he wants to run.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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".

I'm not sure about this, and I certainly don't buy that adventure design isn't rewarding.

When I'm considering a new campaign world, often I start with the types of encounters I'd like to include, including the idea of "Who is the main villian?" and "Why?" Then I start doing outlines to allow me to have a sense of the world that I am creating. When I began my current game, the documents I appended earlier were the sum of non-specific setting that I did, plus a few rules add-ons, like "Totem Spirits of the Lakashi" which were designed to increase PC options.

The next thing that I did was devise an initial "shakedown" adventure -- something that would allow play to begin fast, and that would give the PCs something to do while they learned a little about the world about them. This adventure included:

(1) Role-playing encounters (including one with a green hag).
(2) Non-SRD and SRD monsters.
(3) Cultists, and a thing summoned by the cultists.
(4) Wilderness and Cavern encounters.
(5) A "side trek" while travelling.
(6) Both monetary and social rewards. (Social rewards tie back into the world.)
(7) A big set-piece battle taking place over several related areas.
(8) Hooks to additional areas that the PCs might be interested in. The "hooks" at this point lead to areas that are outlined, but not fully fleshed out. I know what's there, but I don't write stat blocks and boxed text until there is some indication that the hook is on the immediate horizon.
(9) Lots of details about the world around them. And by "details" I don't mean half-hour discussions of elven tea ceremonies. I mean things like briefly describing the land they are travelling through, using specifics instead of generals ("turnips" instead of "vegetables", for instance), and implying relationships beyond the PC interactions (the ogre burying his dead wife, his son lying wounded inside the ruined tower).

I have since gone on to include many additional world-building details, most of these either performing one of two functions (or both):

(1) Adding to PC options
(2) Adding to the range of encounter locations/options

In addition, all world-building is to add depth of meaning to encounters, characters, and locations, so that something discovered in the first adventure is actually relevant to something discovered later on. IOW, there are rewards built into adventuring in the world that aren't immediately apparent, but increase a sense of connection when they are realized.

I call that "good design".

Of course, one should keep in mind that there are DM types, just as there are player types, and not every DM type is appropriate for every player type.

RC

 

[Greg K]

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..

Now maybe it is me, but creating all the adventures of the campaign arc ahead of time sounds to me like a railroad in the making. It sounds like you are already predeterminng the exact direction that the players are going.

As for desigining the world first, there are several reason why I do this:
1) to design a setting that I am interested in running. I will not run something in which I have no interest.

2) Predetermining the countries, races, cultures, deities gives the players choices that have meaning to the setting and that the available choices are known at character generation. Furthermore, along with the addition of small bits of current and ancient history, the predetermined information also provides possible character hooks (e.g., potential enemies, rivals, or goals) should the players choose to use them.

3) having predetermined the world building stuff allows me to better run a game off the cuff when the PCs go in those unexpected directions that make perfect sense from the player's point of view.

And as for world build railroading, my players:

1. have complete freedom of where they go in the world, provided that they a) know of the places existance and b) have the means to get there.

2. Are free to make changes via in-game actions. For example, if a strike at the docks is preventing them from sailing for some destination, they will find a solution (e.g., help the people reach a solution or stealing the ship). Then, there are more large scale changes such as the time when they decided to "play diplomat" and started a civil war, because they made promises upon which they lacked the power to make good-although the promises were made in good faith.