Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[gizmo33]

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.

Hey, if it was nonsense I would have resorted to ridicule.

Anyway, if "Story title - Lord of the Blue Reef" is a representative example of an adventure hook, then the Eberron CS must be a really short book! Are the adventure hooks just given like that in a bulleted list? How did you spot them?

 

[Ourph]

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.

When did I become responsible for what's contained in a published setting book or adventure periodical I had no hand in writing? I get from the statement above that anything you know about your world which doesn't have an adventure directly attached to it is worldbuilding. So I'll ask again, how is having a hex-map of the wilderness NOT worldbuilding. Do you really have an adventure or encounter planned out for every hex? Alternately, how is knowing which monsters to put in all of those encounters you have statted out NOT a product of worldbuilding. If you don't know, in general, what monsters your campaign setting contains and where they might be found, how can you create encounters in the first place?

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!

I still don't think you're adequately explaining how placing those adventures or encounters within the context of your campaign so that the players can stumble across them isn't worldbuilding. Yes, it's worldbuilding directly tied to incorporating adventures into the campaign, but it's definitely worldbuilding. I think the whole point of this discussion at this juncture is that defining worldbuilding as an activity that inherently has nothing to do with adventure-level campaign planning is disingenuous and a perfect example of synechdoche. Defining worldbuilding as only encompassing macro-level creation which will never have any application to planning encounters or adventures simply isn't a reasonable definition of worldbuilding. It may be a reasonable definition of bad worldbuilding or wasteful worldbuilding, but it does not encompass the entire activity of worldbuilding as most reasonable people envision it.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I got the impression he's saying just like a rod & hook...they work better together...and if your a fisherman, then you're going to use both.

That's a title, not a story's hook, you know the thing that pulls the reader in and makes them want to actually read the story. Without a good one most publishers aren't accepting your story...so you could also say without a good hook what's the reason any PC has interest in experiencing this adventure?

 

[gizmo33]

That's a lousy analogy.

Oh, and as far as analogy goes: You can buy fish hooks for any rod, mix and match. By the same token, my world-building DM insists that you can apply an adventure hook to other adventures! It's like if you have a castle from an adventure, and an adventure hook that mentions a castle.

What he fails to realize is that the DM might have to make a handful of changes to the adventure in order to integrate it with the hook. If I was that kind of genius I'd probably be making millions putting fishing hooks on lines!

 

[Ourph]

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.

So essentially your argument comes down to the nonsensical assertion that because worldbuilding CAN be bad, all worldbuilding IS bad. I get it now.

 

[gizmo33]

...so you could also say without a good hook what's the reason any PC has interest in experiencing this adventure?

But a "good hook" is the kind of thing sounds like it's full of world-building details. People, names, places, and their activities - probably in a context that involves other people and places in order to establish some sort of "meaning" to the events.

Bah. Here's a good hook world-builders: "roll for initiative." That gets me sucked right into the story, which is about me killing monsters and taking their stuff. Everything else is just the DM flaunting his literacy and creativity, and that's just embarrasing to watch.

 

[gizmo33]

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.

Yea, creation myths just gives background as to why gods behave in certain ways which in turn explains the motivation of their followers. The motivation for evil cultists should be to stand in the right place for me to use my Great Cleave. That other nonsense about what they're doing or why is superfluous.

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.

"First and foremost" the real priority ought to be to entertain me. After all, the DM has forced me to force him to run a game for me, so he might as well deliver instead of complaining about me coming into his house unannounced and waking him up (sleep also contributes nothing to the adventure as I remind him). If he's writing some kind of nonsense to inspire himself to be interested in the campaign setting, or tickle the curiousity of the poofier players in our group, how is that getting me any closer to epic level?

 

[Darth Shoju]

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?

Well to clarify, I meant that I don't think anyone is saying that in the context of this thread. I agree that there are people who put worldbuilding above adventure design (I was one of them in my younger days), but I disagree that it is as widespread as you claim. Looking at the first two pages of the messageboards here, I found the following threads that seem to focus on designing adventures:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=196039
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=102706
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=194818
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195992

Granted, there are a lot of threads that deal with campaigns, and these threads also feature developing a setting along with the adventure, but I really don't see how the two have to be mutually exclusive. Personally, I want to play fun adventures in an interesting setting with cool characters. Putting some work into developing the setting is important to that IMO.

 

[Hussar]

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?

*snip*

RC

Where is the cutoff between art and porn? There isn't one. I've stated that directly. It's a spectrum with all plot and no world building on one end and Trek Tech manuals on the other. I've stated this repeatedly.

 

[rounser]

Looking at the first two pages of the messageboards here, I found the following threads that seem to focus on designing adventures:

And not a single encounter detailed out of any of that. No stats, nothing written up in a usable form. This isn't adventure design as such, it's just brainstorming ideas with no follow-through.