Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Ourph]

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.

You're setting up a strawman here by saying that "my position" is in favor of "worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake". First, I've never suggested that I'm in favor of anything of the kind. Second, you're defining "worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake" as "the kind of worldbuilding you must engage in if you disagree with me". Neither of those is very conducive to a useful conversation.

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.

Please explain to me how encounter level prep isn't worldbuilding. Please also explain to me how creating multiple potential adventure hooks, having a pre-created hex wilderness with pre-placed encounters and incorporating the lead-ins for pregenerated adventures from Dungeon magazine into the campaign aren't all worldbuilding.

Just to be clear, I'll quote the exact remark I'm referring to.

You couldn't be further from the mark. I'm all about dangling multiple hooks in front of the PCs, and having multiple prepared adventure areas available which the PCs can choose from...even hex wilderness with stuff they can "stumble across" at encounter level. I use Dungeon adventures as a crutch for this, but they're extensively edited down (there's a lot of stuff you can cut out of these).

Again, I think you're engaging in synechdoche by saying all worldbuilding is macro-level worldbuilding and ignoring the fact that all the stuff you're calling "encounter level" and "setting" is also worldbuilding.

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.

Why isn't it equally reasonable to say that creating a setting that supports adventures is, in fact, worldbuilding and that what you are comparing here isn't worldbuilding and "something else" but examples of good and bad worldbuilding?

 

[rounser]

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?

Yehah, it's all in my imagination. People do it through example, just look at ENWorld. The automatic new campaign thing is "what published setting should I use" or "check out my new homebrew setting ideas". The sound of crickets with regard to adventures or campaign arc material is deafening, and that's not even beginning to count the real life DMs I've met who put worldbuilding first and foremost as, YES, more important than the adventures. It's more fun and a lot easier to write about empires that never were, and the role of dwarves in the world than it is to write "a tower of orcs" as one WOTC designer who felt he was above such nitty gritty referred to it as. I can understand why people would prefer to worldbuild (I like to do it too), and so spend a good deal more time on it than strictly necessary to support a D&D game. But denial of that reality is what this thread is all about, so why stop now?

 

[rounser]

Just to be clear, I'll quote the exact remark I'm referring to.

Because adventure hooks are part of adventures, and encounter level material with stats and whatnot is far too low level to make it into a book as setting material unless it's Wilderlands. Everyone and their dog knows that such material is part of an adventure, as in what Dungeon magazine is full of as opposed to Eberron CS. If you had a leg to stand on, the only encounter level material in the FRCS wouldn't be in it as (ta-da) an adventure in the back of the book, apart from the occasional NPC stat for Elminster and the like. We've been down this road earlier in the thread, and what was said by your side didn't make sense then, and it doesn't now. I'm using adapted Dungeon magazine adventures for most of these locations, note the operative word!

 

[FireLance]

Why is this thread starting to smell like holy war?

The fact that worldbuilding can be good does not mean that it is always good.

The fact that worldbuilding can be bad does not mean that it is always bad.

Like fire and money (and low-magic campaigns, and powergaming) worldbuilding is a good servant but a bad master.

 

[Imaro]

Because adventure hooks are part of adventures, and encounter level material with stats and whatnot is far too low level to make it into a book as setting material unless it's Wilderlands. Everyone and their dog knows that such material is part of an adventure, as in what Dungeon magazine is full of as opposed to Eberron CS. If you had a leg to stand on, the only encounter level material in the FRCS wouldn't be in it as (ta-da) an adventure in the back of the book, apart from the occasional NPC stat for Elminster and the like. We've been down this road earlier in the thread, and what was said by your side didn't make sense then, and it doesn't now. I'm using adapted Dungeon magazine adventures for most of these locations, note the operative word!

Sooo. your saying the ECS book doesn't have hooks or adventure seeds or stats for monster and NPCs. Are we reading the same book?

 

[rounser]

Sooo. your saying the ECS book doesn't have hooks or adventure seeds or stats for monster and NPCs. Are we reading the same book?

An adventure hook with no adventure attached isn't an adventure hook. It's just a "promising" idea that may never see play, just like a large amount of other worldbuilding material. Adventures aren't written without hooks; they don't rely on the campaign setting and like the tin man say, "Oh, if only I had a hook, I hope there's some setting bible out there to provide one for me because that's it's realm, really". No, because an adventure hook is part of an adventure, and in the darn module or home written notes, thank you very much...unless you deign to write one of those Eberron CS hooks into an adventure, in which case well done, you've done something constructive: adventure design.

 

[gizmo33]

An adventure hook with no adventure attached isn't an adventure hook.

Right on. I was saying the same thing to the guy in the sporting goods store about fish hooks! I was like "where's my free rod, dude?" I wish people knew what hook meant.

 

[Imaro]

An adventure hook with no adventure attached isn't an adventure hook. It's just a "promising" idea that may never see play, just like a large amount of other worldbuilding material. Adventures aren't written without hooks; they don't rely on the campaign setting and like the tin man say, "Oh, if only I had a hook, I hope there's some setting bible out there to provide one for me because that's it's realm, really". No, because an adventure hook is part of an adventure, and in the darn module or home written notes, thank you very much...unless you deign to write one of those Eberron CS hooks into an adventure, in which case well done, you've done something constructive: adventure design.

Let me get this straight rounser, you're telling me the only "constructive work" for a DM is designing adventures? Again color me confused.

No one said adventures rely on a campaign setting...but the campaign setting can help to enrich the adventures. If I'm playing in a grim world of sword and sorcery and my DM run's my character through Bobo's clowny clown adventures in toon-land...Yeah he made an adventure, and I'll be the first to say it was not constructive...if anything it's probably detrimental to us continuing the game.

Yes this is an extreme example, but no more extreme than you narrowing down what constitutes world building, as well as attributing a certain playstyle to encompass all of worldbuilding(the DM showing off his world over the actual play of the game). So you see, when you make up your own reality to pose a question in you can't help but be right.

 

[rounser]

Right on. I was saying the same thing to the guy in the sporting goods store about fish hooks! I was like "where's my free rod, dude?" I wish people knew what hook meant.

That's a lousy analogy. Okay, here's a story title - "Lord of the Blue Reef". It's a story title because I say it is, even though the story's not written. But according to you it's just as good as a story which is written with a title, and it's ready to use. Except that's nonsense.

 

[rounser]

Let me get this straight rounser, you're telling me the only "constructive work" for a DM is designing adventures? Again color me confused.

No, I said "you've done something constructive", and a lot more likely to see play than working out thousands of years of campaign world history, or creation myths etc. The problem is that worldbuilding is often prioritised far above said adventure design, because it's easy and fun, but not necessarily very useful to supporting gameplay in the same way an actual adventure is. That's all. You'll now go and say again "but it can inspire adventures". So what? Adventures can inspire a better setting, as we've already covered in this thread. And arbitrary worldbuilding can shackle the kind of adventures that can be made, because it's usually done first and foremost as an end in itself.