Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, many is the time I've yawned at an FR campaign that "needed more Drizzt", or had my character say, "Don't worry, Elminster will fix it"

DM PCs are a problem, all right. Just not one that is not intrinsic to, or reliant upon, worldbuilding.

When I say that the campaign isn't grounded enough into the world it is set upon, I mean that there are no consequences for actions, good or ill, things don't change, and no matter what you do you cannot affect a world which is simply not there.

Also, the occasional game where you follow a river flowing uphill into the mountains because the DM fails to grasp basic geography and physics.

 

[rounser]

DM PCs are a problem, all right. Just not one that is not intrinsic to, or reliant upon, worldbuilding.

I was kidding, btw.

 

[Ourph]

Because it's emphasised as a metahobby by so many DMs, above and beyond what is actually useful as game prep - more as a "game within the game" where the objective is to create and show off some sort of verisimilitudinal magnum opus of worldbuilding genius through the convenient medium of a D&D game...as opposed to the more pure goal of running a fun campaign, and sod the "look at my cool world" ego-based stuff.

It seems to me that you're engaging in a pretty severe case of synecdoche here. You're taking one extreme point of view about worldbuilding and labeling all worldbuilding as that one extreme case. Several times in this discussion you've mentioned and defended as useful prep-work you do for your own game that, by any reasonable definition, qualifies as worldbuilding. To belabor the previous food analogy, you've taken the stance that because some desserts are loaded with fat and processed sugar which are bad for your health, a healthy lifestyle is one which avoids all food.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It seems to me that you're engaging in a pretty severe case of synecdoche here. You're taking one extreme point of view about worldbuilding and labeling all worldbuilding as that one extreme case. Several times in this discussion you've mentioned and defended as useful prep-work you do for your own game that, by any reasonable definition, qualifies as worldbuilding. To belabor the previous food analogy, you've taken the stance that because some desserts are loaded with fat and processed sugar which are bad for your health, a healthy lifestyle is one which avoids all food.

I think that's closer to Hussar's argument, except that any healthy food isn't food; it's granola.

I think that Rounser is closer to what KM now says he was saying earlier (that worldbuilding may contain certain flaws, and giving into those flaws is bad), rather than what KM was actually saying earlier (that worldbuilding is bad).

That's my take on it, anyway.

RC

 

[gizmo33]

Yea, world-building is crazy. You know what drives me nuts is when a DM insists on naming his NPCs and towns and telling me about it. All that blabbing about "NPC says this", and "back-story that" just gets in the way of me killing things and taking their stuff. As a player, I'd just rather give the NPCs a number in the order that I meet them.

Why are some DMs so egotistical? Don't they realize that the game is primarily a vehicle for me to roll dice? If an NPC is going to have a name it should be the name of his most powerful magic item, "I'm Mr. +4 Longsword" for instance. That way it's useful to players. "Oh look at me - I can think of names for NPCs!" Sheesh. Some DMs are so full of themselves.

From now on it's "don't ask, don't tell". If you're an NPC and you've got a name, or some tragic backstory, keep it to yourself. I'll return the favor by naming all my character's after myself. In fact, don't even bother making up a dungeon because that's just a lot of world-building involving rooms full of monsters and treasure that I might never find. I'll just work on hypothetical builds for higher level versions of my character while you figure out what's in the next room on the fly.

And speaking of treasure, something like a "necklace worth 500 gp" strikes me as being uncomfortably close to world-building details I don't need. Now you're boring me with useless details about what kinds of things your NPCs like to wear around their necks. Just go with "a jewelry item worth 500 gp" - that's all I'll need to know when I get back to Town #24 and sell it at "the trading post".

 

[rounser]

You're taking one extreme point of view about worldbuilding and labeling all worldbuilding as that one extreme case.

And you're engaging in wishful thinking by pretending that there isn't a whole stack of evidence from multiple authors against your position that worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake isn't a waste of time in terms of actually preparing for a game. Dungeoncraft et. al. are all arrayed against you.

Several times in this discussion you've mentioned and defended as useful prep-work you do for your own game that, by any reasonable definition, qualifies as worldbuilding.

Again, it's wishful thinking to suggest that encounter level adventure prep is just worldbuilding, when the contents of any reasonable setting book apart from the Wilderlands contains nothing but macro level stuff you're so enamored of. Because encounter level prep is all I've mentioned.

Yea, world-building is crazy. You know what drives me nuts is when a DM insists on naming his NPCs and towns and telling me about it. All that blabbing about "NPC says this", and "back-story that" just gets in the way of me killing things and taking their stuff. As a player, I'd just rather give the NPCs a number in the order that I meet them.

When you can't make sense, there's always ridicule to resort to. But then, that should be expected when you challenge the status quo, how can it not be the right way of doing things when we've always done it that way? I don't know, so let's try reductio ad absurdum, regardless of the constant suggestions that a setting which supports adventures is fine, and a much better alternative to worldbuilding for it's own sake.

 

[LostSoul]

Anyway, it now seems (in the last few posts) that you are saying that "Bad worldbuilding is bad", a statement that is tautological, fairly meaningless, and not very interesting. Is bad worldbuilding bad? Yes. No one in this thread disagrees with that one.

Why don't we discuss what bad worldbuilding is, why it happens, common pitfalls, etc. That would be more interesting to me than going round-and-round on this same issue.

 

[gizmo33]

When you can't make sense, there's always ridicule to resort to.

(edit: unecessary language snobbery deleted.)

But then, that should be expected when you challenge the status quo, how can it not be the right way of doing things when we've always done it that way?

Yea. When I'm bored or confused that's so obviously everyone else's fault, mostly the DM, but yet he never gets that. So I go and challenge the status quo and get a bunch of guff back about it. I hate when other people have fun doing something that doesn't include me. That's a status quo I aim to fix.

I don't know, so let's try reductio ad absurdum, regardless of the constant suggestions that a setting which supports adventures is fine, and a much better alternative to worldbuilding for it's own sake.

Exactly! Mr DM: Include me in your fun or (like the article quoted in the OP) I'm going to make vague statments about your psychological type.

Some DMs flounder about with detailing their worlds because they think those details might have some relevance at a future point. Or sometimes they think the players might catch hold of an idea and run with it (like those crazy people playing with RavenCrowking that took an interest in his chess game).

Forget that. I'll tell you what kind of details I'm interested in. I'll give the DM a one-page handout with my preferences and if he utters a peep about what species of tree it is that my half-dragon minotaur barbarian is climbing, I'm going home.

 

[gizmo33]

So my half-dragon minotaur barbarian, that I named Gizmo, was sitting in some place eating breakfast. The DM was forcing me to overhear all this yakity-yak from the NPCs about whatever. At first I thought one of them was going to tell me which dungeon I was supposed to go through, but instead it was almost like all these random details were flying at me that I had to piece together myself.

And it's not like I'm all that happy in the first place because thanks to the DM's "world building" and his insistance that he tell me all about it, I got this vague feeling that my minotaur wasn't all that welcome in his "pseudo-Dark Ages" medieval setting. What-ev-er.

Anyway, I'm about to attack one of these babbling NPCs, just to demonstrate what I mean by "setting element relative to the adventure" when this vaguely humanoid-shaped NPC approaches me. He says something like "the King wants you to undertake a quest", and I'm all like "Whoa whoa, 'King'!? Cripes, what's with the Dark Ages techno-speak!? I don't care about the intricacies of the governmental structure of your town, or realm, or wherever the heck I am. Just tell me where the dungeon is."

It was getting late so we had to stop playing. But while the DM was marking the time on his custom calendar (the height of arrogance!), I was thinking - what if I hired a bunch of mute minotaurs to serve as a bodyguard and keep the NPC riff-raff at bay? Oh well, it's a thought.

 

[Darth Shoju]

And you're engaging in wishful thinking by pretending that there isn't a whole stack of evidence from multiple authors against your position that worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake isn't a waste of time in terms of actually preparing for a game. Dungeoncraft et. al. are all arrayed against you.

I really don't think he is saying that worldbuilding is more important than preparing the adventure. In fact, I don't see *anyone* saying that. But I guess you need to believe people are to have your revolution, right?