Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[rounser]

I'm not sure I buy that; it can be true, but then we have to assume that people who worldbuild focus on things that aren't productive (that is, whatever makes the session fun). Sure, I bet that's true sometimes, but not always.

This has been stitched up pretty tight earlier in this thread. Macro-level wishy washy stuff isn't productive game prep until magnified under the lens of an actual adventure (if you've spent time on Hurindian sword dances and elven migrations, you put the Hurindian dancing swords in a dungeon, or involve the ancient elven migrations in an adventure hook).

The problem is, a lot of people spend so much time and effort on a lot of macro-level stuff that they don't even really intend to put in an adventure except "one day", and leave the actual adventure creation as an afterthought "if time permits", that a lot of D&D campaigns just plain out suck. Or better yet, they leave all the background stuff in the equivalent of a "DM's Background" section in Dungeon magazine, and don't bother to let the players somehow ever find out that this whole thing was because of those elven migrations and that those are Hurindian dancing swords, because the worldbuilding isn't really integral to the adventure; the DM just wants to show off his world somehow.

I say change the emphasis, tie your ego to a stronger moor than a world - instead of "Look at my epic and fantastic world, isn't it clever?" say, "Look at my epic and adventure-packed campaign arc, isn't it clever?" Instead of starting every campaign by choosing or building a setting, start with the encounters you want to run, the adventures you want to run, the campaign you want to run....and let the world go hang as the afterthought to support that campaign that it should be.

If this thread proves anything, it's that worldbuilding is a HUGE d&d sacred cow, and basically a good deal of the metahobby that keeps people playing D&D. I'm just suggesting a slight tweak: tie your ego and metahobby to the adventures and campaign arc, not the worldbuilding.

If worldbuilding is fun in its own right, and doesn't detract from the fun had at the table, I don't see the harm.

It does detract from fun had at the table, because it sucks away time and effort from actual game prep. DMs think their worldbuilding is game prep, but a lot of it never gets to the table. This is rarely the case with adventure prep, and adventure prep creates the setting it needs along the way. If there's time, maybe you can extrapolate on that setting for bonus verisimilitude, but that's just icing on the cake - it's not the main event.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Simple rules of English, old bean: "Why is worldbuidling bad? Worldbuilding is bad because of X."

Why worldbuidling is bad: X.

If worldbuilding assumes X as an inherent and integral component, yes. If not, no.

For example, your statement that "Desert is bad because it rots your teeth, but if you brush after you eat and don't eat much of it, you can avoid rotting your teeth." demonstrates a lack of understanding of the language. Or of logic.

Dessert isn't be bad because it rots your teeth; not brushing your teeth after dessert is bad.

Reading Comprehension may be a good talent to develop, but so is learning how to write clearly.

:shrug: If you can't believe that someone's experiences with this game are that different from your own, I guess I can't convince ya.

I believe that many people's experiences with this game are different from my own. However, I believe this only so long as those "experiences" don't defy logic. For example, if you were to say that when you play D&D, your dog sits at the table and joins in by making a character and telling you what that character does, I wouldn't believe that either. I would be willing to accept that you believe it to be true, but this doesn't make it true.

I think that worldbuilding done during the game is still worldbuilding. Ditto with adventure-building.

I would agree. In fact, I said so earlier, to the general consternation of the "worldbuilding is bad" crowd.

This is a case of moving the goal posts when the previous position was shown to be in error.

However, there is a real difference between something planned and adjusted to meet the needs of planning, and something you are pulling out of your nether regions at the game table. Every game has stuff pulled out the nether regions, but planning ahead of time gives that stuff context and meaning. It isn't created in a vaccuum.

This is similar, in many ways, to the difference between a rough draft pounded out at breakneck speed and the completed, editted work that one hopefully sends to the printers. One may be chock full of good ideas, but it isn't deep and rich. It is a half-formed Quasimodo begging the readers/players for the sanctuary of not noticing the glaring plot holes and inconsistencies.

Again, all games are like this to some degree, but I believe that games that are Quasimodos to a lesser degree are inherently superior to games that are Quasimodos to a greater degree. I hold the same contention about books and movies.

YMMV.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Re: Dragotha

Again, mentioning a single word on a map is NOT world building. It's setting. It's creating atmosphere. However, spending pages detailing Dragotha when there is no chance that the players can visit Dragotha within the confines of the adventure is exactly the kind of thing I'm pointing at.

Never mind that the map in the module is for the DM and doesn't create atmosphere for the players. Never mind that the map itself (a full page) has nothing to do with the adventure.

Sure, if you want to make that information relavent, that's fine. But, that's changing what I said. You've moved the goalposts. That information is irrelavent to the setting in which it is presented. If you change the setting - such as giving the map to the players or running an adventure that features Dragotha, that's fine, but, that's NOT what is presented. In other words, you've changed the story to fit your setting.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If I build a setting element that has a reasonable chance of seeing use, that's creating setting. If I create a setting element that does not have a reasonable chance of seeing use, that's world building. That's been my point all the way along, although, to be fair, I've been sloppy in saying so.

So, detailing the thieves guild of Sasserine makes perfect sense since that's the starting point of the first of the adventures of the Savage Tide. Now, in the modules, it does mention that there were other thieves guilds, but, none of them are detailed. Why not?

Now, am I wrong in thinking that there are people in power in that city?

And am I wrong in thinking that some of them might have interests oppossed to the guild presented?

And am I wrong in thinking that canny PCs might want to increase their potential reward and/or equipment by petitioning these people for reward/aid in opposing this guild?

Exactly what formula do you use to determine what might reasonably be used, and so avoid Celebrim's Quantum Worldbuilding? Because, using your definition, Celebrim seems to be spot on to me.

 

[Hussar]

Re: Dragotha



Never mind that the map in the module is for the DM and doesn't create atmosphere for the players. Never mind that the map itself (a full page) has nothing to do with the adventure.

Sure, if you want to make that information relavent, that's fine. But, that's changing what I said. You've moved the goalposts. That information is irrelavent to the setting in which it is presented. If you change the setting - such as giving the map to the players or running an adventure that features Dragotha, that's fine, but, that's NOT what is presented. In other words, you've changed the story to fit your setting.

A single word on a map doesn't really do anything. It does add atmosphere to the setting, but that's about it. It doesn't detract from the adventure and it is easily removed. I suppose, in that sense, it is world building since it's superfluous, although, IIRC, you can hand that map to the players as part of the hook for the module. But, it's been a LONG time since I read that module although I ran the remake recently.

It probably is world building, but, forgivable since it isn't getting in the way. That's the point that everyone seems to ignore. World Building is bad when it gets in the way. If you smack down a single line on a map, or name the ale, that's fine. That's more setting than anything. It's when you begin to detail out large amounts of information that is superfluous to the text or the adventure that you move from creating setting to world building.

Is there something wrong with my definition that there is a spectrum? On one end you have the most basic of setting creation found in very short short stories and various other forms with almost no setting and all plot. On the far other end, you have pure world building, with almost no plot (or no plot at all) and all setting information such as a Star Trek Tech Manual.

Is it so hard to believe that I don't think this is a purely black and white issue?

 

[rounser]

The killer blow to your argument, RC, is that Dragotha was created as a single line of flavor associated with an adventure - and only became important when he was included in two other adventures! If you can't see how the floor just fell out beneath your argument that some sort of worldbuilding fetish mattered in this instance, then well...

Nevermind that extensive worldbuilding detail on Dragotha would probably have killed it's usability in those other adventures. The brevity made it so usable.

Time to take that turkey out of the oven, it's well overcooked!

 

[Hussar]

Now, am I wrong in thinking that there are people in power in that city?

And am I wrong in thinking that some of them might have interests oppossed to the guild presented?

And am I wrong in thinking that canny PCs might want to increase their potential reward and/or equipment by petitioning these people for reward/aid in opposing this guild?

Exactly what formula do you use to determine what might reasonably be used, and so avoid Celebrim's Quantum Worldbuilding? Because, using your definition, Celebrim seems to be spot on to me.

So you allow first level adventurers with no reputation to have access to the king in your world? Never mind that the text of the adventure SPECIFICALLY TELLS YOU that you cannot do what you want. That the PC's are basically told to bugger off if they try.

I know you own these modules. Please read them if you want to discuss them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's not a case of designing adventures that the PC's don't encounter. It's a case of designing adventures that the PC's have a vanishingly small chance of encountering.

How does this differ from the map in White Plume Mountain?

Where is the magical cutoff point between "creating atmosphere" and "worldbuilding"? One word? One paragraph? One page?

For that matter, where is the magical cutoff point between "creating setting" and "worldbuilding"? If the PCs go off-script and do the sorts of things PCs normally do (IME, at least, such as try to increase their rewards by securing additional patrons, and/or getting involved in the setting), does "worldbuilding" suddenly become "setting" or "atmosphere"?


EDIT: Not to mention that, for most players, the information on the nobility of Sassarine is the list of frakking suspects to the initial mystery presented: Who is trying to scuttle thier patron's fortunes?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The killer blow to your argument, RC, is that Dragotha was created as a single line of flavor associated with an adventure - and only became important when he was included in two other adventures! If you can't see how the floor just fell out beneath your argument that some sort of worldbuilding fetish mattered in this instance, then well...

That would be a killer blow if

(1) You assume anything in an adventure isn't worldbuilding. But, since the nobility of Sasserine is worldbuilding, this cannot possibly be.

(2) Dragotha had anything to do with that adventure.

(3) Dragotha had no influence prior to his inclusion of AoW (clearly not true, as he was the prototype Dracolich, a creature first appearing in a fluffy article by Ed Greenwood). Extensive worldbuilding detail on the dracolich didn't kill it's usability.

Time to take that turkey out of the oven, it's well overcooked!

 

[rounser]

Where is the magical cutoff point between "creating atmosphere" and "worldbuilding"? One word? One paragraph? One page?

It's subjective, but I'd venture that if you've created a 256 page setting bible, you've created much more setting than is needed to support a D&D campaign.

On the other hand, if you've created incidental setting into 256 pages of adventure, that's unlikely to be worldbuilding for the sake of worldbuilding, which is a lot of what you apparently like to do, because you're arguing for it.

Rather than refer to pagecount, though, I'd refer to Wolfgang Baur's first rule - will the PCs care who created the tomb? No? Then don't spend too much time and effort on that part of the game. The problem is that this rule gets broken all the time, and is a big waste of time when broken, which is probably why it's first on the list.

Cue, Raven Crowking: "Define 'too much time'".

Heehee, it's fun to think in strawman black and white terms when it suits your argument, isn't it?