Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[rounser]

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

But he did have something to do with it, he was on a map handout for the adventure that was handed to the players. He wasn't languishing in 10 pages of history in a 256 page setting bible somewhere, he actually made it into the adventure...if only by reputation. That counts as a cameo.

Now, if Dragotha was created as living on another continent, and was part of the campaign world's history, and never made it into an adventure, and was just worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake, then he'd be on your team. Nope, he's mentioned in an adventure for a purpose that suits the adventure (not the campaign world), so he's batting for the other side. Sorry.

 

[Imaro]

The problem I see with both rounser and Hussar's arguments is that anything "useful" is considered "setting" while anything "not useful" is worldbuilding. To me this is a totally subjective argument and dependant upon both playstyle and oppinion. In the above example, elven tea ceremonies was sited as "useless", yet if a PC wanted information from an elven noble and conducted the tea ceremony right I would give him a bonus to his Diplomacy roll...does that make it useful? The elven migrations example leaves a trail in the world upon which many artifacts and items of "old magic" could be found...is that useful?

Even if the PC's don't approach these things right away they still provide hooks and seeds. Perhaps the problem with some people and worldbuilding is that they don't have the imagination to turn almost anything into a potential adventure, luckily I don't have that problem. I honestly think adventure design is a hell of alot easier than constructing a logical and coherent world. Draw dungeon, create hook(s) and populate with appropriate monsters and treasures. If all I did was make an adventure up every couple of weeks I think my prep time would drastically decrease(especially using pre-made NPC's and monsters), of course my overall game would suffer as well( my players do not enjoy the hack n' slash, kill em and take their stuff playstyle as a regular thing.). I don't see the point of creating numerous adventures so that the PC's can pick one and explore it...when I can get the same results + a vibrant and "living" setting by worldbuilding. Do I spend more time detailing the areas closest to the PC's? Yes, but the overall macro-framework is there so that it all flows together smoothly and there is less chance of hiccups, inconsistencies etc. later on.

I think one gigantic use of worldbuilding is in helping to generate ideas for adventures, and if it does so while keeping a consistent and coherent context...well then so much the better.

 

[rounser]

The problem I see with both rounser and Hussar's arguments is that anything "useful" is considered "setting" while anything "not useful" is worldbuilding.

And what's useful? Something that supports an adventure! Because most of what people refer to as worldbuilding is often just for the sake of fleshing out a world for it's own sake, and any adventure support is incidental, then yes, a lot of is called worldbuilding isn't useful for purposes of D&D game prep.

The big giveaway that this is the case is that setting is created first, adventures and the campaign arc as an afterthought, developed to fit in with what has arbitrarily been worldbuilt before. This is priorities exactly the wrong way around, putting the cart before the horse, as has been argued earlier. And here, it's been argued that it's arguably a waste of time in that a lot of the material will never see play, and therefore a violation of the First Rule of Dungeoncraft, Wolfgang's First Adventure Design rule, and the SF author referred to by the OP. And yet, and yet, and yet, it's a sacred cow, so it can't be led to the abbatoir it so richly deserves.

 

[Imaro]

And what's useful? Something that supports an adventure! Because most of what people refer to as worldbuilding is often just for the sake of fleshing out a world for it's own sake, and any adventure support is incidental, then yes, a lot of is called worldbuilding isn't useful for purposes of D&D game prep.

The big giveaway that this is the case is that setting is created first, adventures and the campaign arc as an afterthought, developed to fit in with what has arbitrarily been worldbuilt before. This is priorities exactly the wrong way around, putting the cart before the horse, as has been argued earlier. And here, it's been argued that it's arguably a waste of time in that a lot of the material will never see play, and therefore a violation of the First Rule of Dungeoncraft, Wolfgang's First Adventure Design rule, and the SF author referred to by the OP. And yet, and yet, and yet, it's a sacred cow, so it can't be led to the abbatoir it so richly deserves.

Yeah cause their the end all and be all of gaming, right? Names don't impress me.

My point in the single sentence that you responded too, when taken in context with the rest of what I wrote, is that a good GM can find a way to make any aspect of his world building into an important element, thus his designs aren't wasted. Dungeoncraft is great advice...for beginners, but I've been playing long enough where macro-creation isn't a waste, it's a coherent and wide-ranging grouping of hooks, and adventures within a logical framework. YMMV of course.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A single word on a map doesn't really do anything.

Yes, but I asked about the map itself. Has nothing to do with the adventure (that starts at the dungeon entrance) and "wastes" a page.

That this map gave us Dragotha, and dracoliches in general, seems to my mind to indicate that it wasn't a "waste" after all.

 

[rounser]

My point in the single sentence that you responded too, when taken in context with the rest of what I wrote, is that a good GM can find a way to make any aspect of his world building into an important element, thus his designs aren't wasted.

"Good GMs" are in limited supply - I think Ryan Dancey pointed that out at some stage. I'd consider the majority of Dungeon adventures writers are probably "good GMs", but the amount of stuff that ends up in the DM's Background that the players can never discover has become a Dungeon magazine cliche. The glaring fault here is that the DM knows the background, but no mechanism is in the adventure for the PCs to discover it. To the PCs the setup for the adventure all seems totally arbitrary and inscrutable - in any media other than D&D this would be a death kiss, unless you're writing for the X-Files. And that's just designing adventures! Setting bibles aren't even on the map, and the "inscrutable background that the players will never discover" mistake's already being made! No wonder Wolfgang had it as his first rule.

Yeah cause their the end all and be all of gaming, right? Names don't impress me.

Especially when what they're saying doesn't suit your argument. Yes, I understand.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Does being told to bugger off preclude the PCs from trying? Does it preclude the PCs from trying to pursue information about these people in other ways?

 

[rounser]

Has nothing to do with the adventure (that starts at the dungeon entrance) and "wastes" a page.

I don't know where to start with this one. The map is an adventure handout which lets the PCs get to the dungeon in the first place, yet not part of the adventure, and the hook which sets up the adventure isn't part of the adventure? No wonder we can't agree when everything not a dungeon is worldbuilding to you. Here's a hint: if it's in a module, it's probably part of the adventure.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I dunno, seems like quite a lot of people understood the topic without splitting the hair so fine. You didn't, but I hope it's now been clarified.

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.

Nothing I'm doing defies the laws of physics, and isn't anything not done already on a daily basis by thousands of actors worldwide who either specialize in or occasionally adopt a persona in improv. It defies your experience, but that's part of life and learning, man: realizing your experience isn't exhaustive of all possibility (even if it is extensive).

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

You'll note that I never agreed with Hussar's idea that worldbuilding is exclusively defined as superfluous. Certainly bad worldbuilding can have that quality. My argument has always been an agreement with Harrison and the idea that this could apply to D&D, and my discussion has been largely about how much it can apply to D&D.

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.

Demonstrably false. Whether I plan ahead of time to have the Necromancer King backed by ghouls or just fit the CR to the party on the fly, the Necromancer King is still backed by ghouls. How I arrived at that conclusion doesn't matter to anyone at the table except me.

In the equasion N + X = 4, N and X could be a host of different numbers...all that matters is that they add up to 4. All the players see is that number 4. N + X could be anything.

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.

I'm on board with this. The idea that it's necessary to do boatloads of worldbuilding needs to get kicked to the curb, hard. It's been proven time and time again (in various other games, if not much in D&D): A game doesn't require pages of setting material. And it can be a wonderful game with as much verisimilitude, verve, richness, and depth as anything with a Tolkeinesque-level setting bible.

It ain't the QUANTITY, baby, it's the QUALITY.

My point in the single sentence that you responded too, when taken in context with the rest of what I wrote, is that a good GM can find a way to make any aspect of his world building into an important element, thus his designs aren't wasted. Dungeoncraft is great advice...for beginners, but I've been playing long enough where macro-creation isn't a waste, it's a coherent and wide-ranging grouping of hooks, and adventures within a logical framework. YMMV of course.

How many of those hooks will be used this month?

This year?

Before someone moves away and the game is suspended?

Before you reach a level that the hook isn't well-suited for?

Before you need to tell players "you can't gain levels or be warforged or learn teleportation because my pre-planned adventure hooks can't handle it?"

Before it's either wasted effort, or setting-level railroading?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Rounser, I doubt that you are attempting to argue either that

(1) Worldbuilding is bad because it might be bad

or

(2) Worldbuilding is seperate from creating setting, where the sole determinant between the two is whether or not the PCs use the material (or, in a softer approach, the nebulous degree of likelihood of their using it).

Your position seems to be that obsession over macro-level setting can sometimes interfere with the creation of micro-level setting, in some cases to the point where the micro-level setting required to actually run the game is ignored.

If that is your position, then I can well see why you don't think my points disprove it -- they don't. They are related to positions (1) and (2), above, which seem to be what KM and Hussar's statements boil down to, respectively.

RC