Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Ourph]

Most DMs tend to write world first, adventures second.

I would agree with that. The vast majority of the time where the PCs are in the world and what that part of the world is like significantly informs what kind of adventures will happen (i.e. - who the PCs will be killing and what kind of stuff they will be looting from them). In my experience, players expect and enjoy it when their choices about where to be in the setting have an actual bearing on their experiences in the game.

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

Is there a prescribed plotline for the PCs in ToEE? I must admit, I didn't see one. It's more than a locale though, it is a module. It does requires giving life to the NPCs within, but it is hardly an uninformed area. IMO it's not even close to a railroad. If it is the only locale in your world, than maybe you are right. But it certainly doesn't need to be.

I must say, I'm not sure what you mean by the improv styles you list. As my setting is full of adventure on all sides, I am running the material on hand. Perhaps playing NPCs might be considered improv, but than what are the PCs doing? That NPC roleplaying comes from the same type of material as the Players: background, stats, and personality..

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.

Let me throw out all the terminology typically used for books and narratives. RPGs have no need of them. It is not "setting", it is World. It is not "character", it is Person. When I say the "plot" is created moment to moment I mean the players are Planning and taking Action. I never Plan for them. I don't assume they are taking any action whatsoever. They are in control 100%. There is no "plot" to find. They create it as simply as you and I do by living in the real world.

 

[howandwhy99]

Railroading has most certainly occured in all editions.

Not to such prevalance as to today. Sure, tournament adventures are railroading adventures. And yes, Necromancer and Goodman Games have some nonlinear, module-type adventures too for 3.5. Life isn't exclusive. But I've already agreed that setting isn't really necessary for tournament adventures. You're expected to explore the Slave Pits, than the world is hardly necessary. Campaign-style play, however, is completely different.

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.

I agree with you here. The game is about the adventure. It sounds like though, you are planning your characters actions and than creating setting around those plans and I am creating settings and allowing the players to create the plans. IMO, one is telling a story, the other is make-believe.

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.

I talked about "complete" worlds limiting creativity. And to be honest it really isn't all that limiting. It only limits further creation of the world since it's already done.

I agree the rules limit creativity too, but it's always been up to the DM to change the rules to allow new types of characters. You could create a class where fighters shoot laser beams and wizards cast more often. It's simply balancing them within the system already in place. The implied setting that D&D has carried since the beginning is merely a baseline. Groups could play Traveler with the rules if they wanted to. It will take some prep. I agree with you here the DM is final arbiter of rules and setting.

 

[Hussar]

Is there a prescribed plotline for the PCs in ToEE? I must admit, I didn't see one. It's more than a locale though, it is a module. It does requires giving life to the NPCs within, but it is hardly an uninformed area. IMO it's not even close to a railroad. If it is the only locale in your world, than maybe you are right. But it certainly doesn't need to be

You're right. ToEE isn't a railroad. How about Dragonlance? Or the fact that dead PC's get raised by their enemies in the Slavelords modules? Are these not examples of railroading from 1e? Are all earlier edition modules railroads? Most certainly not. Are all later edition modules railroads? Most certainly not. This is not edition specific.

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.

But, taken in context, its pretty clear that The Shaman is saying that by deviating from standard D&D assumptions, it becomes more and more difficult to move adventures from one setting to another. I disagree. Filing the serial numbers off of a setting to use a module is rarely very difficult. Thus, setting is fairly irrelevant.

Or, to put it another way, if your setting is so tightly wound that changing minor cosmetic elements causes it to fall apart, you resemble what Harrison is talking about.

Take the Warforged Ninja bit again. 7th Sea is set in a fairly advanced setting with fantasy elements, I think. How difficult would it be to add a slight bit of steampunk and say that warforged, or at least constructs, exist in the setting? Not very. Since the general population accepts dwarves and elves, saying that they don't reach for their torches and pitchforks when the warforged comes into town isn't much of a stretch. Yet, you continiously refuse to even entertain the idea of loosening the grip on the setting canon to allow the player to play what he wants.

In other words, setting has become more important than game.

You call the no platemail a player entitlement issue. I suppose that anytime the player wants anything that the DM doesn't is a case for player entitlement. The problem is, a minor change in setting would allow the player (me) to get what he wants. I wasn't asking the DM to completely rewrite her campaign. I wasn't asking for massive amounts of rework or even retconning of existing campaign canon, since it had never come up before. I was asking to be allowed to use the rules that existed in the core books. If that's player entitlement, well, sign me up.

Take another example. One DM I played with changed the rules for spell research in 2e to reduce the chances by about 99% or so. Instead of having about a 25% chance of success (I honestly forget the actual chances) it was down to about 1%. Now, these changes were brought in because he felt that named spells should be restricted to powerful wizards. Low level wizards should never have named spells.

As it happened, he instituted these changes after I had already spent time in game amassing a library and labratory for spell creation. So, all the effort I had put into creating my "mad scientist" type character went straight down the toilet. All because he had a certain campaign element fixed in his mind and that was more important than my character.

Or, as another example, look at all the problems with paladins. A large number of these problems boil down to the DM having differing ideas of what a paladin is than the player does. Instead of the DM sitting down and thinking about how the paladin character would work in the adventure, he decides that paladins must be a certain way and any deviation from that is met with loss of status. Again, the DM's setting triumphs over the game.

Does this mean that world building is always bad? Nope. But, it does mean that when world building is placed over player wishes and the needs of the campaign, that it is bad.

 

[Ourph]

Does this mean that world building is always bad? Nope. But, it does mean that when world building is placed over player wishes and the needs of the campaign, that it is bad.

It seems to me that your examples aren't really about worldbuilding they are about houserules. The worldbuilding aspect may get thrown in as a secondary justification, but it seems to me that the platemail, the spell restrictions, the Paladin's code stuff are primarily modifications to the system, not the setting.

 

[Hussar]

Well there is a question. Where does system end and setting begin? If I make dwarves 9 feet tall, is that a setting or system change?

 

[Imaro]

But, taken in context, its pretty clear that The Shaman is saying that by deviating from standard D&D assumptions, it becomes more and more difficult to move adventures from one setting to another. I disagree. Filing the serial numbers off of a setting to use a module is rarely very difficult. Thus, setting is fairly irrelevant.

Or, to put it another way, if your setting is so tightly wound that changing minor cosmetic elements causes it to fall apart, you resemble what Harrison is talking about.

This same thing can be said for advetures. If there's no dragons, how hard is it to find something else with an appropriate CR that fits? Thus setting is perserved and adventure continues.

Take the Warforged Ninja bit again. 7th Sea is set in a fairly advanced setting with fantasy elements, I think. How difficult would it be to add a slight bit of steampunk and say that warforged, or at least constructs, exist in the setting? Not very. Since the general population accepts dwarves and elves, saying that they don't reach for their torches and pitchforks when the warforged comes into town isn't much of a stretch. Yet, you continiously refuse to even entertain the idea of loosening the grip on the setting canon to allow the player to play what he wants.

In other words, setting has become more important than game.

No, its a social contract as in, We all agreed to play a certain game, with a certain feel. The game isn't about one player it's about the group as a whole and if a player can't modify his concept slightly to fit within certain parameters why should a DM be expected to modify his world? It's give and take on both ends.

You call the no platemail a player entitlement issue. I suppose that anytime the player wants anything that the DM doesn't is a case for player entitlement. The problem is, a minor change in setting would allow the player (me) to get what he wants. I wasn't asking the DM to completely rewrite her campaign. I wasn't asking for massive amounts of rework or even retconning of existing campaign canon, since it had never come up before. I was asking to be allowed to use the rules that existed in the core books. If that's player entitlement, well, sign me up.

Perhaps all that "adventure design" the DM worked on was created for PC's with low armor classes and thus since it was the most important thing, she used setting built around it to enforce that.

Take another example. One DM I played with changed the rules for spell research in 2e to reduce the chances by about 99% or so. Instead of having about a 25% chance of success (I honestly forget the actual chances) it was down to about 1%. Now, these changes were brought in because he felt that named spells should be restricted to powerful wizards. Low level wizards should never have named spells.

As it happened, he instituted these changes after I had already spent time in game amassing a library and labratory for spell creation. So, all the effort I had put into creating my "mad scientist" type character went straight down the toilet. All because he had a certain campaign element fixed in his mind and that was more important than my character.

It sounds like this wasn't an element he decided beforehand, but something spawned from that spontaneous creation many are harping on. If it had been established and immutable before, you would have known and not wasted your time.

Or, as another example, look at all the problems with paladins. A large number of these problems boil down to the DM having differing ideas of what a paladin is than the player does. Instead of the DM sitting down and thinking about how the paladin character would work in the adventure, he decides that paladins must be a certain way and any deviation from that is met with loss of status. Again, the DM's setting triumphs over the game.

Does this mean that world building is always bad? Nope. But, it does mean that when world building is placed over player wishes and the needs of the campaign, that it is bad.

Actually the player and DM should be hashing out the paladins code together. All of these seem like problems that don't stem directly from worldbuilding, but DM vs. Player issues. I don't see how detailed worldbuilding necessarily instituted any of these problems.

 

[Recidivism]

This same thing can be said for advetures. If there's no dragons, how hard is it to find something else with an appropriate CR that fits? Thus setting is perserved and adventure continues.

...

No, its a social contract as in, We all agreed to play a certain game, with a certain feel. The game isn't about one player it's about the group as a whole and if a player can't modify his concept slightly to fit within certain parameters why should a DM be expected to modify his world? It's give and take on both ends.

Agreed. To me much of this sounds like sour grapes and axe grinding on a target-of-the-week. Pretty much it boils down to this: "Worldbuilding was bad in these instances because I felt like these choices were unreasonable." Not everyone is going to draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable at the same place. C'est la vie.

 

[Ourph]

Well there is a question. Where does system end and setting begin? If I make dwarves 9 feet tall, is that a setting or system change?

There are things that are both. Changing the height of dwarves is both if it makes dwarves size Large instead of Medium. If they are still Medium creatures I'd say it's setting only.

Telling the players they can't ride their horses to the City of Shamalam because it's on an island is pure setting.

Telling the players they can't ride horses to the City of Shamalam because they haven't taken the feat Ride Horse to Shamalam is pure system.

Telling a player they can't buy platemail because it doesn't exist in the setting is a mixture of both, but IME most of those types of decisions are made because of concerns the DM has with the system and the setting element is a justification that's supposed to maintain verisimilitude rather than being the underlying reason. The DM doesn't want players to have access to the best armor (system concerns) so he configures his view of the setting to conform to his new houserule.

I'm not saying that your examples aren't legitimate as part of the discussion (yeah, it's frustrating to have a DM give you a really lame setting excuse for their really lame houserule) just that we shouldn't be conflating lame houserules with lame worldbuilding wholesale.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Take the Warforged Ninja bit again. 7th Sea is set in a fairly advanced setting with fantasy elements, I think. How difficult would it be to add a slight bit of steampunk and say that warforged, or at least constructs, exist in the setting? Not very. Since the general population accepts dwarves and elves, saying that they don't reach for their torches and pitchforks when the warforged comes into town isn't much of a stretch. Yet, you continiously refuse to even entertain the idea of loosening the grip on the setting canon to allow the player to play what he wants.

In other words, setting has become more important than game.

Cool. Can I play a Care Bear in your campaign?

Instead of the DM sitting down and thinking about how the paladin character would work in the adventure...

Interesting. Do we decide how the paladin works before *each* new adventure? If it is different than the last adventure, do we change the character to suit the new adventure? Would that be an example of your adventure being more important than the character?

Honestly I've kind of lost what the discussion is here. As far as I can tell, no one here is placing worldbuilding as more important than developing the adventure. Some people do seem to be saying they like to establish the setting elements before writing the adventure and others are claiming that is restrictive to player options and options for adventure. So I guess my question is, are those people advocating a complete kitchen-sink setting where everything goes? Is there any continuity/consistency in these settings? If so, aren't you defining the setting with each adventure you play? (for example, if you play an adventure featuring dragons heavily, doesn't that stop you from playing one where they are an extinct race later? Or if one adventure takes place on an airship, then are you ruling out adventures that would be ruined by the use of such a vessel?)

I guess I just don't know what the "ideal" is here. How can you play a game that doesn't restrict options without sacrificing coherency?