Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Desdichado]

Uh... dude. That post you responded to--it's not there anymore.

And yeah, today is a slow day for me. What of it?

 

[LostSoul]

Apropos of nothing; since I'm several days behind in reading this thread and don't even intend to catch up--worldbuilding can often lead to unanticipated plot points. Here's an example from my own campaign:

Cool stuff, Hobo.

 

[Raven Crowking]

He shares this perspective, now, and has changed his gaming style accordingly. I know people who are in his campaign right now, and he's made an effort to adapt more of a balance between world-building and character-building.

He's told me so, himself.

It was an acknowledged mistake.

Then I will accept that this was a worldbuilding issue according to whatever definition the two of you were (are) using. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more clearly how the two tie together, though, for the purpose of better understanding your viewpoint.

I certainly agree that this sort of thing is a definite problem....one I would quit a game over without a second thought.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As a related aside:

The creating of setting materials that might not see use in the game would seem to include non-linear dungeon layouts, such as those used in many older non-tournament modules, where the PCs wouldn't necessarily have to hit every room (or even every major encounter) in order to get to the "end". Opposed to this are the linear layouts of tournament modules, where every area had to reasonably be "hit" in order to score properly, and at least some of the early WotC modules, which have fairly linear maps.

(There is an excellent thread analyzing module maps around somewhere; I can try and find a link to it if need be. I believe that it was started by Mallus, but I could be wrong..... )

Anyway, I am wondering how anti-worldbuilding people feel about non-linear maps. Should a map channel you to every possible major encounter?


RC

 

[molonel]

Then I will accept that this was a worldbuilding issue according to whatever definition the two of you were (are) using. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more clearly how the two tie together, though, for the purpose of better understanding your viewpoint. I certainly agree that this sort of thing is a definite problem....one I would quit a game over without a second thought.

It was the sort of thing that you'd only see if you gamed with him in the longterm. Up to that point, I think his campaigns had only ever lasted to 10th or 12th level. We took this one up to 21st level, XP by painfully earned XP. The game world he runs is a continuous one where the adventures of his players occur at different points in his world timeline. But the world, as he conceived it, was the iron bar that was always smacking us in the head just as we started to build momentum. The continuity of the world was more important than the role we played in it. Overall, it was a good campaign. I learned a lot. The time spent with friends certainly wasn't wasted. But where it could have been great, it settled for merely okay. There's nothing wrong with a good game, but we had a group of imaginative, dedicated players who WANTED to build an epic saga. I may never have a gaming group like that, again. And to have that sort of opportunity, and frustrate the players so often with so many brick walls that had no other reason for being there other than to keep his world safe was a travesty.

Having learned that lesson, I stepped in as the DM in another game where the DM stepped down. It was a continuous world, and the adventure was a big city adventure. The players quietly told me that they were sick of the stupid city, and running around in it.

Having just acquired Bruce R. Cordell's When the Sky Falls, I nuked the city with a comet. I don't hold anything in the worlds where I run my game as sacred or untouchable.

 

[molonel]

Anyway, I am wondering how anti-worldbuilding people feel about non-linear maps. Should a map channel you to every possible major encounter?

I think the World's Largest Dungeon is living proof that extensive mapping doesn't necessarily make an adventure fun.

If players REALLY want to use maps, I can generally find something from an old adventure or 0one's Blueprints on RPGnow.com. But it's been a LONG time since I had players with graph paper graphing every. Five. Foot. Square.

And I haven't missed it, either.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Am I correct in understanding that this DM had worked out the future continuity of his world? I.e., what would happen, as opposed to what had happened? Is this roughly the problem?

Or is the problem that he wanted the world to remain static, as-is? I.e., he tried to prevent the world from evolving in response to PC and NPC actions?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the World's Largest Dungeon is living proof that extensive mapping doesn't necessarily make an adventure fun.

(I think that the real problem is that so much of the map is empty.)

If players REALLY want to use maps, I can generally find something from an old adventure or 0one's Blueprints on RPGnow.com. But it's been a LONG time since I had players with graph paper graphing every. Five. Foot. Square.

And I haven't missed it, either.

I don't mean having the players map; I mean maps that have multiple avenues that each have their own set of major encounters vs. maps that channel through a single set of major encounters. IOW, is the implicit player choice of the non-linear type a good trade-off for the extra work? Or do you consider that extra work a waste? Conversely, is the explicit lack of choice of a linear map too confining?

 

[rounser]

Anyway, I am wondering how anti-worldbuilding people feel about non-linear maps. Should a map channel you to every possible major encounter?

Not in my opinion.

If you're now going to state that heavy worldbuilding is equivalent to such "more dungeon development" (or whatever your encounter level map represents), then don't bother, because we've been over that terrain earlier in this thread. Worldbuilding offers no guarantee of containing anything which the PCs can actually interact with, whereas an extra encounter-level map area is somewhere they can set foot in and encounter. By all means, drop much of your worldbuilding time to build better adventures.

Also, don't bother to argue that extra encounters are in fact worldbuilding, because we've been there before as well. There is a reason why setting bibles are full of macro level stuff (with the exception perhaps of the Wilderlands), and adventures full of encounter level stuff, because those are the domains they encapsulate in the accepted definitions of those terms, borne out by what is published under those headings.

 

[molonel]

Am I correct in understanding that this DM had worked out the future continuity of his world? I.e., what would happen, as opposed to what had happened? Is this roughly the problem? Or is the problem that he wanted the world to remain static, as-is? I.e., he tried to prevent the world from evolving in response to PC and NPC actions?

He didn't necessarily have the future continuity worked out ahead of time, but the problem itself was two-fold: the world itself was designed according to certain principles that disagreed with us; and ultimately, his concept of how things should work out in the world was more important than ours.

He was building the world. We weren't. Our efforts to create and effect things were always trumped, always falling apart at the seams, always crumpled. Meanwhile, if we ever wanted to do anything important, we pretty much had to piggyback on an NPC's plans. (Because, God knows, those NEVER failed.)

After 21 levels of this, we took a break for a year and a half. The "climactic" battle was against an enemy we didn't particularly care about, never had anything to do with, unsuccessfully tried to ally ourselves with and didn't give two hoots about beating.

We did one adventure at 35th level where we were finally allowed to trounce the good guys. (Because, of course, even though we were the big evil rising powers in the world, nobody cared and we always ended up fighting other evil villains.) I told the DM, outright, that I would play in the finale on one condition:

We were the main focus of the story.

If I had the sense that I was just Asmodeus's towel boy, I'd go watch a movie and let him roll the dice for my character, since my decisions and participation obviously weren't required for the game.

The world evolved and changed, but not because of us. Or we would simply be the avenue by which someone else accomplished their plans, or didn't.

I don't mean having the players map; I mean maps that have multiple avenues that each have their own set of major encounters vs. maps that channel through a single set of major encounters. IOW, is the implicit player choice of the non-linear type a good trade-off for the extra work? Or do you consider that extra work a waste? Conversely, is the explicit lack of choice of a linear map too confining?

I do whatever I have to do in order to (a) maximize fun, and (b) minimize prep time. I listen to play input. Once in a while, I'll throw in a maze and let them map it. Sometimes, it will simply be a scene by scene progression where I handwave the unnecessary parts of the wandering. I might let them wander through a maze, and make intelligence checks to affect working out the maze.