Why Worldbuilding is Bad
The traditional balance is back-to-front IMO, though. Traditionally, D&D is 32 page modules and 256+ page settings. I think we're slowly waking up to the idea of 32 page settings and 256+ page modules....e.g. whatever you may think of the railroading, Thunder Rift + Age of Worms results in a lot more game straight out of the gates than FRCS + Sunless Citadel, and a much, much higher "hit rate" of actually visiting the areas written about.
The same thinking could also be applied to homebrew worldbuilding (as opposed to campaign arc building), where the lion's share of the effort is likewise IMO traditionally in the wrong area, just like published wordcounts. In fact, the huge setting, small module might be a reflection of designers - like homebrew DMs - wanting to go "straight to dessert" (ego-stroking worldbuilding) before they've created the main meal (nitty gritty adventure design).
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Kamikaze Midget said:I missed some interesting stuff, but I wouldn't say I missed anything of key importance for the plot.
Depends upon how you limit the definition of "plot". IMHO, Tolkein wasn't attempting a straightforward plot in the way that he had with The Hobbit. LotR is an "interweave" where there are several stories ongoing, all at the same time, and all impacting the main plot. The more you skip, the less the ramifications of the main plot make sense, and the shallower the work as a whole becomes.
As an example, there's a bit of discussion in the bar at the beginning of LotR, where Sam says that his cousin saw a tree walking. This relates to the story of the Ents in Fangorn Forest, where they are searching for the Entwives, who would like country like the Shire. But Sam isn't there; only Merry and Pippen, so the Ents never learn what Sam could tell them. A sort of mini-tradgedy story within LotR.
Aaron L said:
One merely has to read The Hobbit to see how Tolkein's views of Middle Earth changed between that work and LotR. In the original version of The Hobbit, Gollum gave Bilbo the Ring. That the Necromancer was Sauron was a retcon....a brilliant one, but a retcon nonetheless. Or one could read The Father Christmas Letters for an idea of what Tolkein's early languages were like. It might be true that he had created scattered hints of what would later become The Silmarilion, but it is far more likely that he used his disparate projects to create a single cohesive background only when he began actual work on LotR.
Hussar
Legend
Raven Crowking said:
I was asked for examples where a DM's love of a setting got in the way of fun. I provided examples. Apparently, that isn't good enough. If the setting was cave man days, then I could instantly grasp why there would be no plate mail. However, given that the setting HAD all the elements of early Renaissance technology, complete with crossbows (the weapon specifically designed to defeat plate mail), I am left with the assumption that the DM is passing off lame house rules as setting flavour.
Why is it so important to you and to others what I have posted in other threads? Is it not possible to discuss what I have said here without bringing up past discussions? Should I be forced to now go through and edit every post I make to make sure that every post I make is completely in accordance to how you interpret my past posts?
In other words, could we keep the discussion on THIS discussion please.
And that's fine, for you. The fact that your players come back seems to jive with that idea. My point isn't that you should NEVER say no. I've never said that. My point is that there is an apparent double standard.
When a player asks for an element which differs from the DM's setting bible, he's accused of all sorts of things, from entitlement issues, to not being creative, to being disruptive and not playing well with others.
When a DM refuses to change an element of his setting bible, he gets a big old pat on the back for preserving his vision against the slathering hordes of entitlement minded players out there. It almost seems like the fact that someone sits in the DM's chair automatically confers the idea of infallibility. In the examples I gave, you brush them off, despite any knowledge beyond what I've said. These issues bothered me as a player. But, the DM is ALWAYS RIGHT.
My point is, sorry, no that's not true. Sometimes the DM's ideas blow. Sometime's the players ideas suck. However, a DM should never place his campaign bible up on some sort of pedastal and never change it to accomodate a player.
Something that I have realized in this thread though is a new form of Godwinning. Any mention of Tolkien automatically ends all possible lines of communication as any criticism, no matter how valid or invalid, will lead to automatic dismissal by those who believe that the Professor is the second coming to literature.
On another note:
Rounser said:
QFT
Raven Crowking
First Post
Hussar said:
Couldn't it also be that, in this setting, the crossbow was designed for another purpose? For example, to penetrate the hides of some monsters?
It is only important in terms of determining how well thought out a position might be. If I hold mutually exclusive opinions, it is relevant to the discussion that I do so. Either I am misguided, or I am not honest with myself, or something else is going on.
In fact, it is exactly this sort of thinking that led me to determine that KM was right that the DMG, at least, should be written for the lowest common denominator. I was, in effect, arguing that the game should be written to a higher standard, while at the same time arguing that Rule 0 should be more explicit (read "lowest common denominator"). The expectations are mutually contradictory, and I had to choose between them if I was going to be able to contribute seriously to a discussion of either topic.
Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you understood what you were saying, and that you were being accurate in what you said. The examples you gave had to do with theme and, as I define it, world-building (though not world-building as you have defined it earlier). However, surely you knew that whatever examples you provided would be examined to determine whether or not worldbuilding was actually the cause of the problem?
The plate mail example is perfect. It is either a DM problem, due to the DM's ideas blowing and putting her bible up on a pedastal, or it is a player problem, due to a player not being willing to grant the DM reasonable leeway to describe the world.
The evidence we have been presented with is
(1) We have one player arguing about it, and attempting to get around it.
(2) That player, in the post where he reports the example, admits that he didn't handle it well.
(3) That player claims that he expects that anything in the Core Rules should be available to the PCs as the source of his complaint.
(4) That player claims elsewhere that it is all right for DMs to disallow things from the Core Rules.
Any sort of standard of "reasonableness" is going to conclude that this is an example of a player problem. This doesn't preclude DM problems existing -- I am sure that we all know that they do -- but the existence of DM problems doesn't make worldbuilding the cause of those problems, any more than the ruleset is the cause of player problems.
I'm pretty sure that most people here accept that there can be worldbuilding that is handled badly, and that there can be worldbuilding that causes problems. Some idiot even went so far as to call it "evil" and suggest getting the pitchforks. Moreover, many people suggested that the setting should have grey areas, and that the DM should be open to change if appropriate, even on the pro-worldbuilding side.
The thing is, though, that the DM does the majority of the work, and is not obligated to change that work. Nor are you obligated to play. That doesn't mean that some DMs don't blow. Or that some players don't suck. Nor does it mean that DMs who blow wouldn't be better DMs (and presumably happier) if they learned how not to blow. I think that's something we can all agree on.
Or they might desire accuracy.
Your definition of worldbuilding, IMHO, precludes Tolkein, which makes it rather useless as a definition of worldbuilding, again IMHO. That seems relevant to me. Whether or not Tolkein's worldbuilding damaged the plot, given the nature of this discussion, is also relevant.
If you wanted to discuss Tolkein's using themes and ideas from various sources, you would soon realize that I don't hold Tolkein as the second coming of literature. That was Lord Dunsany.
RC
Hussar
Legend
Ok, once more I shall define worldbuilding in this thread.
Worldbuilding: I define worldbuilding as an endevour to create an entire world, separate and distinct from the needs of plot or, in the case of gaming, adventure.
Thus, by my definition, Tolkien would most certainly be guilty of worldbuilding. The fact that you can excise large swaths from the text (as evinced by the movies) and still have a damn good story shows that. Howard doesn't do a whole lot of world building since much of what he writes about directly affects the text. Shadizar, while never exactly detailed, is used as an example of the lack of morals in Hyboria, just as an example.
In other words, no matter what I say, I lose. You keep moving the goalposts. Yes, it could have been. But it wasn't. There are a lot of things that could have been true, but weren't. The DM in question was so enamoured by her campaign setting and had decided that plate mail was not going to be in that setting, that she was incapbable of changing. To me, that is a failure in world building.
You cannot possibly envisage a scenario where the Warforged Ninja fits in a 7th Sea campaign, despite all evidence to the contrary. To you, the setting of 7th Sea triumphs over all considerations. No matter what I say, you will simply continue to move the goalposts.
So, because the DM has spent hours on creating crap, my only options are to either put up with crap or walk? In no situation should the player complain about the situation and attempt to change the DM's mind? The DM here is elevated to infallible being, in whose world I should feel priveleged to participate? Ballocks.
If DM's were as concerned about their adventures as they were about their settings, I think we would see a lot fewer threads talking about how bad a DM someone is.
Worldbuilding: I define worldbuilding as an endevour to create an entire world, separate and distinct from the needs of plot or, in the case of gaming, adventure.
Thus, by my definition, Tolkien would most certainly be guilty of worldbuilding. The fact that you can excise large swaths from the text (as evinced by the movies) and still have a damn good story shows that. Howard doesn't do a whole lot of world building since much of what he writes about directly affects the text. Shadizar, while never exactly detailed, is used as an example of the lack of morals in Hyboria, just as an example.
In other words, no matter what I say, I lose. You keep moving the goalposts. Yes, it could have been. But it wasn't. There are a lot of things that could have been true, but weren't. The DM in question was so enamoured by her campaign setting and had decided that plate mail was not going to be in that setting, that she was incapbable of changing. To me, that is a failure in world building.
You cannot possibly envisage a scenario where the Warforged Ninja fits in a 7th Sea campaign, despite all evidence to the contrary. To you, the setting of 7th Sea triumphs over all considerations. No matter what I say, you will simply continue to move the goalposts.
So, because the DM has spent hours on creating crap, my only options are to either put up with crap or walk? In no situation should the player complain about the situation and attempt to change the DM's mind? The DM here is elevated to infallible being, in whose world I should feel priveleged to participate? Ballocks.
If DM's were as concerned about their adventures as they were about their settings, I think we would see a lot fewer threads talking about how bad a DM someone is.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
O'course, none of that has to do with two plucky midgets on their merry way to drop some jewelry into a mountain. Ents? Doesn't really matter what they do, because if Sam and Frodo fail, everyone is doomed, and if Sam and Frodo succeed, everyone is saved.
Now, I realize that Tolkein was telling three stories at once, but it's also true he didn't give me any reason to give half a concern for Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas, and what they did didn't matter to me. They were superfluous, and, even at age 8, I had better things to do than read about characters who didn't really matter. For me, they got in the way of the main story of LotR: eternal evil faced by little faery men.
Of course, as I went back and read them at age 9, I saw how the adventures complimented each other and that he was truly telling the story of an age, not just two hobbits on a rock climbing expedition, but there is something to the fact that I don't even, to this day, really care about his age.
So in a D&D adventure, the only story that matters is that of the character who gets the death-blow? Every other character is superfluous and a waste of time (as well as all of the encounters leading up to the BBEG encounter), since Bob's character got the kill / broke the macguffin?
Sounds kinda dull.
Call me old-fashioned, but I like an adventure that has more to it than a single room with a large box that reads, "Contents, one Minotaur. Insert sword for 762 exp. Then go home."
Hussar
Legend
Set said:
That's taking it a tad far though dontcha think? He's not saying that the party that is involved with defeating the BBEG is superfluous. Sam isn't superfluous even though he doesn't directly chuck the jewelry into the fire. However, there are some characters in LOTR that could be cut out without a single hiccup in the story. **cough Tom Bombadil cough**
Call me a bad player, but, elements in the game which have no impact upon my character or my group don't matter to me. If something is happening in the campaign world that in no way affects me or those around me, I couldn't care less. I don't play D&D to be a side character. I play to be one of the heroes. And, in most stories, the action focuses on the heroes.
In other news...
It looks like the folks at WOTC may have been eavesdropping on this thread. Check out the latest Save my game
Storm Raven
First Post
Kamikaze Midget said:
I'd say that when you read LotR at eight and nine, you missed an important point. Even though Sam and Frodo succeed the ents, elves, and dwarves are still doomed. And the elves, ents, and dwarves knew this to be true before Frodo and Sam set out on their journey. To be sure they are not enslaved and tortured in Sauron's dungeons, but their world is ending, their time is past. That's why Sam's inability to mention the tree his cousin saw walking is a tragedy - yes they defeated the BBEG in the story, but the ents remain doomed by circumstance.
Defeating Sauron, for the elves, dwarves, ents, and so on of Middle-Earth, wasn't a choice between "Good" and "Bad", it was a choice between "Bad" and "Less Bad". In many other stories told by lesser fantasy authors, it is all roses and candy after the BBEG is defeated, but in Tolkien's world, it isn't. That is a big part of why LotR continues to resonate fifty plus years after its publication, and the various imitators have had little impact of note.
(Of course, you also neglect the point that without the various contributions of the ents, elves, Rohirrim and so on in the other parts of the story, Sauron would have been free to focus more attention on internal security, and Frodo and Sam would not have succeeded. Which makes all of the other work instrumental to the success of the efforts to get the ring to Oroduin).
Last edited:
Similar Threads
