Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[FireLance]

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?

Here's how I'd deal with it. I have a rather modular approach to worldbuilding. If I want to introduce an element (such as shadar-kai dread necromancers), then shadar-kai and dread necromancers will exist in the world, and I will find a way to work them in. If a player wants to be a warforged ninja, warforged and ninjas will exist in the world and I'll work out how they fit in, too. If the player wants his character to be the only warforged and the only ninja in the world, I can deal with that too (unless I have other plans, in which case, I'll tell the player that he's the only warforged ninja in the world... as far as he knows ), but the player will have to detail how the PC came to be, or I'll just make up something simple.

Playing a care bear is another matter, because it's a non-standard race. Unless the player can come up with a decent set of rules for a care bear character (meaning, I agree that it's balanced), I'll just propose adapting something similar for the mechanics: for example, using the Ewok or halfing race as a base, and taking levels in the bard class.

In other words, coherence is something that is worked out after all the character variables are finalized, not before. If nobody is interested in playing a spellscale, and I am not planning to have spellscales in my adventure, there is no reason for spellscales to exist in the world. Should I or the players change our minds later, we can find some way to work them back in. The PC (or NPC) could even be the first spellscale to exist in the world.

 

[howandwhy99]

I agree in full with Firelance above.

Let the players' imaginations run free. Let them invest in their characters.

I do say, in the case of Care Bears, outlandish, out-of-genre proposals should really be passed before the whole group, but why limit your game unnecessarily?

This reminds me of our OD&D game. When I rolled up a Cleric I asked what Gods were available. Diaglo says, "Anything". I was a bit taken back by that. I suggested a bunch of stuff including Sifl and Olly the sock puppets and he agreed to all of them. It's just like real life. People can worship whatever they choose. I could have picked my PCs' left hand. Would it have been "the dominant religion in the world"? Probably not, but this is an unknown world, so it goes to say I couldn't know that beforehand. Perhaps it could be true. But then I'd likely lose my hand in short order. Fun is fun.

 

[Aaron L]

I enjoy worldbuilding. My friends who play in my world also enjoy the worldbuilding I have done and the detailed setting I have crafted.

I think that adventures should be tailored to fit into the setting they are set in. An adventure set in the Forgotten Realms should be different than an adventure set in Greyhawk, and an Eberron adventure should be different than a Dark Sun adventure. I think that adventures that are generic enough to be placed in any setting will be inherently boring because they are so generic and lack the background and history of a setting to anchor them.

I think that PCs should be tailored to fit into a setting and it's cultures and history. I don't think a setting should be altered to fit the PCs. Making allowances for special characters is OK, but when every character is an oddball that doesn't fit the setting than the game becomes ridiculous and not enjoyable to me. Setting is almost a character in it's own right to me; every setting has it's own flavor and style that enriches it, or at least they should, in my opinion. When a game is set in a featureless world where any idea imaginable is allowed it becomes a chaotic mish-mash that doesn't appeal to me in the least.

I think that building and detailing a world will free a DM from the need to have adventures written in advance, and the very idea of having adventures written in advance is railroading in it's purest form; how do you know what the PCs are going to do and where they are going to be well enough to have adventures pre-planned unless you railroad them onto a set path? Having a well detailed world allows a DM to let the PCs go where they want and do what they want because every location is already in place and detailed, just waiting for the PCs to go there, while having pre-set adventures means that the PCs MUST be at the location of the adventure, or that the adventure is so generic that it can be placed anywhere (which would mean it is a dull and shallow adventure, to me.)


Look at it this way: which episodes of a TV series, lets say the X-Files, are more interesting; the "setting" episodes, which explored the Conspiracy and the history of Mulder and the aliens, or the "Monster of the Week" episodes, which were one-shot stand-alone episodes that had little to no impact on the story-arc of the series?

Or, even more basically, which shows are more interesting; shows like Lost and Babylon 5, which have an unfolding plot in a detailed setting, or serialized shows like Seinfeld and most of Star Trek, in which episodes could essentially be viewed in any order and there is little to no plot development throughout the series?

It's entirely a matter of taste which kind you like, but I vastly prefer the shows with a rich background and unfolding plot; the same way I vastly prefer games that integrate with their setting and have a rich an detailed backstory.

The blog post was nothing more than a statement of personal preference using snarky language, but it then went on to insult anyone who doesn't follow his personal preference by calling them boring, plodding nerds. This reduced it to a meaningless rant. I can just as easily say that anyone who doesn't share my preferences in gaming or fiction is a drooling imbecile, but I wont, because I recognize and respect that different people have different tastes, and there is no objective way to say which is better.

However, I can say that people who call others names for not sharing their personal idiosyncrasies are juvenile.

 

[Hussar]

I agree with Firelance as well.

 

[Hussar]

I think that adventures should be tailored to fit into the setting they are set in. An adventure set in the Forgotten Realms should be different than an adventure set in Greyhawk, and an Eberron adventure should be different than a Dark Sun adventure. I think that adventures that are generic enough to be placed in any setting will be inherently boring because they are so generic and lack the background and history of a setting to anchor them.

Looking at the list of the most popular modules of all time, I would say that many disagree with this point.

 

[Aaron L]

Looking at the list of the most popular modules of all time, I would say that many disagree with this point.

Not surprisingly, I really dislike modules and can't stand either running or playing them. I like my adventures tailored to the characters and their histories.

I don't think this is a widely held opinion, but it is my opinion; the fact that this opinion is shared with everyone I game with just means that I game with people who have similar preferences.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think that adventures should be tailored to fit into the setting they are set in. An adventure set in the Forgotten Realms should be different than an adventure set in Greyhawk, and an Eberron adventure should be different than a Dark Sun adventure. I think that adventures that are generic enough to be placed in any setting will be inherently boring because they are so generic and lack the background and history of a setting to anchor them.

I agree with you, but IIRC most DMs run homebrew settings. If publishers are going to sell to them, they need to try and appeal to as many as possible. Hence the generic D&D setting. I think a lot of the pieces of published adventures can be modified into most D&D settings. That's what modules are for: to be modified.

I think that PCs should be tailored to fit into a setting and it's cultures and history. I don't think a setting should be altered to fit the PCs. Making allowances for special characters is OK, but when every character is an oddball that doesn't fit the setting than the game becomes ridiculous and not enjoyable to me. Setting is almost a character in it's own right to me; every setting has it's own flavor and style that enriches it, or at least they should, in my opinion. When a game is set in a featureless world where any idea imaginable is allowed it becomes a chaotic mish-mash that doesn't appeal to me in the least.

In my view I'm not altering the setting to allow for outlandish PCs. I'm working with the players' ideas to modify them and fit them into the world. D&D is pretty upfront about the baselines of its standard setting. The standard races, classes, spells, and items all typically have a place in most settings. Eberron tried very hard to keep every single thing and yet alter each in some way. Similarly, sticking to setting and including odd PC proposals can be done too. If the players all want oddball characters, that's their decision. They know the status quo going in. If you run a known world though, they already know what's expected. Adding Carebears to LotR isn't going to work.

 

[FireLance]

I think that adventures should be tailored to fit into the setting they are set in. An adventure set in the Forgotten Realms should be different than an adventure set in Greyhawk, and an Eberron adventure should be different than a Dark Sun adventure. I think that adventures that are generic enough to be placed in any setting will be inherently boring because they are so generic and lack the background and history of a setting to anchor them.

Okay, this sparked off a minor insight (at least for me). I think the key issue here is: who's the star of the adventure? If the PCs are the stars, whichever campaign world they happen to be adventuring in is largely irrelevant, and the details can be changed without significantly affecting the flow of the adventure. Does it matter if the paladin serves Torm, Hieroneous, or Dol Arrah? Does it matter whether the adventurers are based in Sharn, Waterdeep, Greyhawk or Tyr? If the PCs are the stars, the answer is no.

If the world is the star, or one of the stars (it's not all or nothing - there can be varying degrees of importance), then the setting elements matter and are important. That's not just another epic-level wizard; he's Mordenkainen. That's no ordinary scimitar-wielding drow ranger; he's Drizzt Do'Urden. That's not just another magic-blasted wasteland; it's the Mournlands. Players can enjoy this kind of world, too. An established, detailed and well-known campaign setting (whether published or homebrewed) offers the advantages of familiarity to the players. It also helps break down the barrier between character knowledge and player knowledge, which in turn helps the player to immerse himself into his character's role and view the world from his perspective.

A secondary thought along these lines is that setting plays roles of varying importance in books, movies and other stories as well. For example, the story of Romeo and Juliet does not suffer (much) whether it's set in medieval Verona, modern-day Verona Beach, or whether the conflict is between two noble families or two rival street gangs. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a story like The Mummy or The Mummy Returns that does not involve Egyptian elements in some manner because of the strong association that mummies have with Egypt.

 

[Darth Shoju]

If the world is the star, or one of the stars (it's not all or nothing - there can be varying degrees of importance), then the setting elements matter and are important. That's not just another epic-level wizard; he's Mordenkainen. That's no ordinary scimitar-wielding drow ranger; he's Drizzt Do'Urden. That's not just another magic-blasted wasteland; it's the Mournlands. Players can enjoy this kind of world, too. An established, detailed and well-known campaign setting (whether published or homebrewed) offers the advantages of familiarity to the players. It also helps break down the barrier between character knowledge and player knowledge, which in turn helps the player to immerse himself into his character's role and view the world from his perspective.

A secondary thought along these lines is that setting plays roles of varying importance in books, movies and other stories as well. For example, the story of Romeo and Juliet does not suffer (much) whether it's set in medieval Verona, modern-day Verona Beach, or whether the conflict is between two noble families or two rival street gangs. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a story like The Mummy or The Mummy Returns that does not involve Egyptian elements in some manner because of the strong association that mummies have with Egypt.

But I thought limiting options was bad? If we are playing a "Mummy Returns" type adventure we can't do Red Hand of Doom with the same characters. Isn't that a problem?

 

[Darth Shoju]

I agree with Firelance as well.

What I'm not going to do is rewrite my entire evening's plans to accommodate a single player.

Why not? *Firelance* was willing to change things to make it so I was the only Warforged Ninja in the world (but possibly secretly make it so I'm not).