Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[ShinHakkaider]

You know what's funny...setting obsession can be a player thing as well.

I was playing in a star wars campaign set after the events of episode III but before episode IV. We we're all playing Jedi fugitives who we're basically following orders from Obi wan to perform cetain missions. Halfway through the campaign, me and my brother decided to break from the remnants of the Jedi order and form our own order called the Gray Order...basically finding a balance between the Dark side and Jedi teachings. The GM was cool with it, but one of the players had a fit. Hollering about how this never happened, and wasn't star wars, etc. The game crashed and burned from there as this player made it his obsession to try and stop everything we did in building our new order. It's actually kind of hillarious now that I tink back on it.

NO DOUBT!

It's funny that you mention the SW example as I'm planning to start a SW game after the Saga rules come out and I have a concern about that same exact thing. But it all comes down to making sure that you and your players are properly aligned in what you want out of the game before you even sit down to make characters. For me this is one of the most important parts of pre-game prep that often gets neglected, people in some cases are just so excited to have found a group to play in they don't concern themselves with if this is the right group or DM for them.

Which once again brings us back to the worldbuilding thing, I dont think it's a bad thing and in some cases it's neccesary, but to what extent? Also the extent of worldbuilding is different of each group and/or DM. Some DM's really feel the need to draw out that world map and populated with areas that the PC's will probably never go to. Some Dm's will just detail the area that the PC's start out in and along with PC input begin to flesh out the surrounding areas and eventually the world. Some DM's wing it and then either rely on the memories / notes of the PC's or take really good notes themselves for consistency's sake. Who's to say that any of these things is the one true way or the way of suck. I know what works for me and my group and in the end that's all that matters. I really think that's the crux of this entire 20+ page argument.

 

[Raven Crowking]

IM-not-so-HO, no good can come of the DM artificially keeping NPCs alive. I'd call that a failure of worldbuilding (possibly and adventure preparation) for sure. If your world/adventure can't survive the death of an NPC (no matter how important), then you haven't given enough consideration to how that NPC fits into things to show how his/her death affects the area/adventure/world.

Sure, you might have imagined a major fight with the BBEG in Chapter Three of your story arc, or you might have imagined that the Good Guy Wizard was always going to be around to meddle with/control the PCs. But the PCs aren't supposed to have a DM hammer controlling them, and they aren't supposed to necessarily follow your clever Adventure Path Outline either.

A well made setting -- be it a dungeon, a city, or a world -- makes it easier for the DM to swing with the changes the PCs cause, but that doesn't mean that the DM will avail herself of that utility. The PCs are supposed to change things. They are supposed to inteact with the world. If they can't leave things different than how they found them, what's the point?

(Though I very much doubt that anyone on this thread thinks that the PCs should be in a world/adventure made like a ride at Disneyland, where what you can see, touch, choose, and effect is all tightly controlled and largely illusory.)

 

[Darth Shoju]

I knew you'd jump on that. You guys love the semantics, because it's the only way you can defend your position, simply because it's unjustifiable.

Who are "you guys" and what is their "position"? Personally I largely agree with you. The part where we differ in opinion is you seem to feel worldbuilding is completely useless and nothing more than a tool to inflate DM ego. I see it as a useful tool for adding depth. I see it as a secondary priority to adventure design, but still an important element to many DMs and players alike.

Instead, you're adding yet another straitjacket to the adventures to the ones you're referring to above (whatever they are) for no reason whatsoever, except that you've tied your ego to the world and have your priorities back-to-front.

Really man, that's gotten old. In my experience I've never had a setting or worldbuilding hinder my fun at the gaming table. There's no reason that any DM worth his screen can't run an enjoyable game using *any* setting. Frankly the game you describe sounds potentially fun until you've run through the generic adventure archetypes. At that point it seems like it would get repetitive and boring. If a DM had nothing more to offer me than the same adventure types I'd be done with him (or her). If that was all D&D was about I'd find myself a new hobby (or at least a new RPG).

Thankfully, that *isn't* what D&D is about. But if the group you DM for is having fun, then whatever. Keep doing what you are doing.

 

[Darth Shoju]

(Though I very much doubt that anyone on this thread thinks that the PCs should be in a world/adventure made like a ride at Disneyland, where what you can see, touch, choose, and effect is all tightly controlled and largely illusory.)

I agree, but apparently Rounser feels that's how the majority of DMs in the hobby run their games.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree, but it apparently Rounser feels that's how the majority of DMs in the hobby run their games.

Well, I have to acknowledge from the wide number of reports of the same from very different sources that those DMs must exist, but thankfully I seem to be able to avoid them. Or maybe those are the people who I don't even become interested in gaming with after talking to them. Don't know.

EDIT: I very much doubt, though, that those people would be any better DMs if they were playing based on adventure arcs or improv, though. Immature is immature, and a bad DM is a bad DM; this is just one way in which "bad DMism" manifests....sometimes even officially (like Fizban in the DL modules; we're not going to the DM what's going on so that clever PCs can't use divination magic to find out....It'd ruin our adventure!).

 

[Baron Opal]

Worldbuilding doesn't provide a "serious" game, nor prevent railroad. That stuff is all contained in the nature of (drum roll) the adventures and the campaign arc, so spend time on that instead of the world already.

Allow me to clarify:

Worldbuilding can lead to railroading.
Improv can lead to "beer and pretzels" gaming. (Sorry, vocabularly failure.)

I think I see where my disconnect is with your position. Developing the adventures and the campaign arc is worldbuilding. Worldbuilding is the generation of the "why" and the "what" of the world. Why are the orcs in the tower? How old is the tower? Did the orcs take the tower from someone else or build it themselves? These are all questions that require some forethought about the world around the PCs rather than simply determining "Room 1: 4 orcs with bows. 25% chance of being asleep." Finding the letter with the seal of Lord Timberlake on the orc chief begs the question of who the seal belongs to. What is the seal? Do all nobles have seals, or is there something special about this one?

The wasted effort you call "worldbuilding" is what ties the adventures together in a meaningful manner. There's noting wrong with pulling a Dungeon magazine off the shelf and running the level appropriate adventure. But if you want a meaningful campaign rather than a string of adventures there needs to be consistency and context. This is what worldbuilding provides.

"Worldbuilding" is not a pejorative term. It is the process of determining what exists for the PCs to interact with. In designing my campaign it let me determine that the city-states of Beryl and Spicegate would war. It gave me an idea of their resources and temperment. And, since the PCs chose not to involve themselves, wouldbuilding tells me who the victor will probably be.

When it comes right down to it, I disagree with the OP's definition more than the assertion. Yes, if you define all aspects of the world down to the names of all the innkeeper's children you are spending far more effort than you need. If you are enjoying yourself, it is arguable whether or not the effort is wasted. Yes, more than a little effort needs to be devoted to the creation of the adventures, plot and theme. But, the process of worldbuilding provides the plot hooks, motivations, locales and potential rewards of the PCs directed mayhem.

 

[Hussar]

Again...ASSUMPTION OF PLAYSTYLE. Why does the existence of a setting book automatically determie how it's information will be used? Do any published settings actually say "don't change anything.", my experience is the opposite. You are making numerous assumptions based off...well actually nothing but ancedotal evidence. I don't really think most DM's slavishly keep their world or a published setting from changing. Maybe you should do a poll so we can actually have some basis to refer to when you speak about these things.

Really? Look at sites like Canonfire! or Fargoth, or a multitude of others. I've seen people on EnWorld specifically say that when one person added flying ships to Forgotten Realms that he wasn't playing the Realms anymore. (sorry, no linkie) There's a huge amount of chatter on setting canon that flies around. Try starting a thread that states you think that demons were created by the gods and see what happens.

Really man, that's gotten old. In my experience I've never had a setting or worldbuilding hinder my fun at the gaming table. There's no reason that any DM worth his screen can't run an enjoyable game using *any* setting. Frankly the game you describe sounds potentially fun until you've run through the generic adventure archetypes. At that point it seems like it would get repetitive and boring. If a DM had nothing more to offer me than the same adventure types I'd be done with him (or her). If that was all D&D was about I'd find myself a new hobby (or at least a new RPG).

Really? So, I can play my modified Warforged Ninja at your 7th Sea game no problem?

Or Imaro's anecdote, which I've seen similarly presented by other people in other places?

Let's see WOTC publish a book about the planes which contradicts canon and see what happens. Or a book which destroys half of Greyhawk and then brings it back in a new form.

Oh wait, that was done fifteen years ago and people still bitch about it.

So are MMs useless? Is it a waste of time and resources to publish them?

Sorry, working backwards here. I would say yes. Most monster manuals are a complete waste of time. A book which only sees about 10% use in play is by and large, useless wouldn't you agree? The search by WOTC for monsters with traction shows how bloated the monster field is right now. People complain about feat bloat, but, come on, right now, there's THOUSANDS of monsters in print just for 3.5 edition. Most of which will never see the light of day.

No you're probably not alone. However I use my character's background every session. It informs nearly every action and reaction he makes. The little details I tossed in based on his culture have come up repeatedly and I (and the other players and the DM) have enjoyed them quite a bit. But if I had just created what I needed to play in the adventure (which would involve almost no character info beyond stats really) then none of that would have existed.

And, again, you've made your setting relevant. Fantastic. That's how it should be.

Originally Posted by Hussar
But, I'm also being told that in order to have a campaign with depth, I need to do a complete gazateer, even for the 95% of stuff that I'm not going to use.

Link, please.

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3515172&postcount=732

You're welcome. (Note, it's been a while, so, I've added my original line to the quote.

Apparently, without setting bibles, we are constrained to only play meaningless dungeon crawls without any context. It is only through world building that we gain any context in the adventures.

This is one of those things where I disagree with the consensus position of both sides of this debate. While I absolutely agree that Wolfe has some of the coolest invented worlds in fiction, there is very little evidence that Wolfe uses a world building process to create them. I mean, there is some evidence. In book of the Long Sun, Wolfe has obviously done some math on the population that is sustainable on his world using certain assumptions, and he does some enumeration within the story as part of the revealing of what is really going on because in context only the world's enumeration can meaningfully shift the reader's context. But by and large, I see no evidence in Wolfe that he relies heavily on world building as I understand the term, because Wolfe seems to have relatively little desire in seeing his world 'hang together' in an orderly fashion. If you scratch his story, I think you find his setting is only plot deep. In this fashion, I disagree with both sides consensus position. Yes, you can generate an elaborate setting without a world building process, but the mere fact that you can does not render world building useless, bad, or justify the claims Mr. Harrison made directly or indirectly.

Celebrim, isn't this pretty much what I've been saying all the way along? That you can create deep settings WITHOUT world building?

Now, I've gone a step further, true, and stated that I find world buildilng to be an indulgence, but, is that where our differences lie?

Ok, I'll try to give an example of how you can do setting without world building. Take the difference between Sword and Sorcery Press' Shelzar: City of Sin and Mystic Eye Games' Urban Blight.

In Shelzar, you have a couple of hundred page setting bible that's pretty much par for the course. Map, several pages of history, hundred or so keyed locations, important NPC section, and a few other odds and sods. Pretty much bog standard setting bible. Nothing too original here. This I would call definitively world building. It contains all the elements of world building by definition.

In Urban Blight, you have 20 encounter locations that can fit into any city. The locations don't really have any plot to them, although some are suggested by the location - ie. the gambling house would likely have some sort of gaming plot. The locations are each self contained and are only linked by the fact that they appear in the same book. Each location is scalable for various levels and are immenently reusable. To me, this is placing adventure ahead of setting.

Imagine if a setting bible city book were presented in this way. Instead of bog standard setting book, you have a couple of dozen high point adventure locations to be fleshed out by the DM. You can link them together by including references within the locations which showcase the setting. Each location can be used and reused and the DM can craft any adventure he feels he wants simply by mixing and matching the locations.

I think this is the kind of thing that Rounser is advocating. Instead of having a 200+ page setting bible appear for pretty much every setting out there, change the format to adventure location books, as specific as you wish them to be, so that the world building that occurs serves the adventure.

To me, it's the difference between Sasserine and Farport. Sasserine will only see a small, tiny fraction of the information available actually used in a given campaign. The fact that one of the plantation owners who lives a days journey from Sasserine has a hot daughter and six strapping sons will likely not come up in play. OTOH, every NPC that appears in Farport has a fairly high chance of seeing play. The history of the Isle of Dread is tied to the main NPC's mother and the players have her journals in their greedy hands. Setting is tied to adventure, rather than simply mooching around bumming smokes.

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim, isn't this pretty much what I've been saying all the way along?

'Partly' is not the same as 'pretty much'.

That you can create deep settings WITHOUT world building?

Deep? Maybe. Evocative, certainly. But I've never argued that creating a setting depended on world building. I have always only said that world building was a useful tool for a writer.

Now, I've gone a step further, true, and stated that I find world buildilng to be an indulgence, but, is that where our differences lie?

That and your incredibly twisted definition of world building which insists that any world building that goes on which creates setting isn't in fact world building. But, yes.

Ok, I'll try to give an example of how you can do setting without world building.

Who do you think needs such an example? An example of a setting that was created without a world building process proves nothing that is actually a point of contention. As a trivial example, a setting that is internally inconsistant is still a setting. You can't prove your case by listing examples of setting without world building, because your case is not that world building is sometimes bad, but by your own admission that it is always a negative. But a single example of a setting or story that couldn't be created (or could not be creaetd as well) without a world building process proves that world building is not merely an indulgence. There is a vast gap between necessity and indulgence, and I don't have to prove necessity to disprove indulgence.

 

[Hussar]

There is a vast gap between necessity and indulgence, and I don't have to prove necessity to disprove indulgence.

Although, again, where does necessity end and indulgence begin. Sorry, that was rhetorical.

Fair enough, but, otoh, we've got people here emphatically stating that a setting without world building leads to railroaded, mindless dungeon crawls with zero depth. That's not a fair characterization either. One doesn't need world building in order to construct setting.

Before I get accused of taking things out of context, look at:

Post 5
Post 19
Post 52 with quote:

Part of the problem, I think, is people who see world building as wasted effort don't care about versimilitude, they don't care about details, and they aren't interested in building something that exists beyond the character they are currently playing. This is a perfectly viable way to play, but it seems atithetical to the idea of the RPG to me. Why would you play throwaway characters in a throwaway setting? You have these tools at your disposal to create a whole world -- not just as the Dm, but as a player, too. Don't people play subsequent campaigns in the same worlds anymore? Don't people play their characters' children and children's children? Is it just me? Is the idea of making legends and legacies that live on a dead one?

I engage in worldbuilding because the results, at the table, are far superior to the alternative, and the stories we tell of those results, we tell for decades after they happen. Because there is context, for everyone. If the world in which the adventure occurs in which the characters exist doesn't matter, how can the adventure or the characters matter?

Post 55
Post 62

And that's just from the first two pages. Rounser does have a point. The idea that you must engage in world building to create a deep, impacting setting is pretty heavily ingrained in a lot of people's mindsets. The fact that RPG companies crank out setting book after setting book shows how ingrained this is. Heck, GURPS makes money off of people buying their setting books who never play their game. Because we are that much of great clodding nerds.

 

[Imaro]

And that's just from the first two pages. Rounser does have a point. The idea that you must engage in world building to create a deep, impacting setting is pretty heavily ingrained in a lot of people's mindsets. The fact that RPG companies crank out setting book after setting book shows how ingrained this is. Heck, GURPS makes money off of people buying their setting books who never play their game. Because we are that much of great clodding nerds.

I don't think anyone, and I may be wrong, that's argued "for worldbuilding" has claimed you "must" do it. These whole thread was started with the assumption that "worldbuilding is bad" continued to a further point that "world building is a waste of time" by both you and rounser. If anything the arguments for worldbuilding have been to defend it against being considered a "waste"...which IMHO is a totally subjective thing anyway. You and rounser have steadily preached your one wayism without consideration for both personal prefrence and utility beyond your view of the utility of worldbuilding.

If anything, in the quotes you've posted, I've seen people take you and rounser's theory of "design a bunch of encounters" to the same extreme that you've used to bash worldbuilding...All I can say is what goes around comes around. None of these posts say you have to do worldbuilding to play the game or even have fun with the game. What I read indictaes that for a certain style of play depth the method of worldbuilding helps these people and is appreciated by theior players. Why is the concept that worldbuilding might not be a total waste, dependant upon the people you play with, so hard to grasp.