Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[I'm A Banana]

And don't bother falling back on the old saw we've seen in this thread already that "worldbuilding inspires adventures", because the converse is just as true, and at least by putting adventure needs first you're not imposing arbitrary restrictions on the quality of the game just because some setting doesn't have a city there, or there are no boggarts in the area.

That probably explains my improv-heavy style better than anything I typed before.

The players inspire the adventure. The adventure inspires the world.

In reference to the AIAAT (all improvisation, all the time) style, I gotta say, almost everything I've ever done in life was made better (or would have been made better ) by thinking about it first.

The brain is a marvelous tool. It's first advantage is that thought is immensely rapid. I can think about something before I do it, and then do it, all within the span of a minute or less. I don't need to think about it, prepare to do it, wait a week, and then do it.

It's second advantage is that it is amazing at recognizing patterns. I've read a lot of books, seen a lot of movies, watched a lot of TV, played a lot of games...I know that when there is a princess in trouble, a knight in shining armor will always want to save her. I know that necromancer kings host armies of undead in forgotten lairs. I know that barbarians hate wizards, and that tentacles make people go insane. I know no one can see a ninja who does not want to be seen unless they are an even *better* ninja.

In other words, I know archetypes. Archetypes are a pattern that the brain can recognize. And then, as if those patterns were building blocks, I can meld them together and structure them one on top of the other and twist them and balance them to make an adventure.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Because arguably, with the exception of roleplaying talk to NPCs and PCs, the game doesn't really exist until you're interacting with something low level. Disarming a trap, fighting a monster, quelling a riot, chasing a thief, navigating a dungeon, puzzling over a mystery. Goggling at the DM's cool world isn't playing D&D, it's just decoration to the main event.

Not that "goggling at the DM's cool world" is how I play, but I'm very glad you hold the sacred definition of how to "play D&D".

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there's a lot more play straight off the bat with no more prep needed using Age of Worms plus a 32 page setting like Thunder Rift than there is with the FRCS plus a 32 page module like Sunless Citadel. As far as running a game now goes, rather than the possibility of a campaign sometime in the future, the former is, yes, a lot more useful than the latter. If you don't want to play, now, then that's not the case, but that just points out that your priorities are not about actually playing the game - they're about worldbuilding fetishism (and if that weren't the case you'd be more interested in making your own homebrew adventure campaign arc equivalent if Age of Worms didn't do it for you, but no, you're too busy making a "world"). But we already knew that.

You already knew what? From your response you don't seem to have read the majority of my posts so I'm not sure what you know. My point has always been that the "adventure" has priority. I've explicitly stated that. I do as much worldbuilding as is required to bring the depth of interaction and sense of wonder and fantasy as is required for myself and my group; but the point is to bloody well adventure. However, what I've been refusing to concede is that worldbuilding is only superfluous and has NO value. Even if it only exists to entertain the DM it has value. As long as it doesn't negatively affect the design or execution of the adventure it doesn't have any cost compared to that value either.

And not wanting to play a particular AP certainly does not mean I prefer worldbuilding over adventure-frankly that tactic was pretty weak. And what does "ready to play *now*" mean anyway? As long as the DM shows up with the adventure ready to go what bloody difference does it make how he made it or where he got it? Do you ambush DMs and force them to run APs? Further, why do I need to design a whole AP up front? I'd rather make a handful of low-level adventures for the PCs to choose from and then develop on what they choose.

If your ultimate point is that DMs who do nothing but create a fabulously intricate world that the PCs can't change and play a backseat to uber DMPCs then I agree: that is bad. But frankly that is a gigantic non-argument and a waste of a thread. There have been countless threads on ENWorld decrying that form of gaming. But maybe that is how the majority of D&D games are run nowadays; all I can speak from is experience and the only crappy games I've played in have had neither adventures nor worldbuilding. Things are working out just fine for me lately but maybe I've just been lucky.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Even if it only exists to entertain the DM it has value.

And if it doesn't entertain the DM?

It's worthless.

And I think running the game with your friends is a lot more entertaining for me, as a DM, than sitting alone in a room pondering about a world that will never be.

 

[Baron Opal]

The OP's point is that, yes, worldbuilding for it's own sake with no story purpose and that the author then self-indulgently forces into the narrative at the expense of the actual story kind of sucks.

Hmm, with all the invective in the OP's post the point I received was somewhat different.

Keeping the OP's original quote in mind, with your fine, insult-free translation, I still maintain that "worldbuilding" is useful. Not necesary, but useful. The worldbuilding allows the insertion of details that make the DM's own. Also, if the PCs deviate from the established story arc if gives the DM ready made options. Worldbuilding increases your options.

So, at what point is the DM becoming "self-indulgent"? Time, I imagine. When the players are hampered in their adventuring by tripping over details; the DM constantly narrating the glories of the world rather than the consequences of the hero's actions. Time spent listening to corrections than furthering their goals.

I have no idea if the shape and details of the coins of the Jewel City-States, the Star Crown Empire and the Yarcha tribes will ever be useful. That the detail is present does lend itself to a bribery adventure where the coins of a different country would be the tale-tell sign. I would say "You find a sack of rectangular gold coins stamped with a cursive worm-like script. You believe that they are of Yarcha mint", rather than simply describe the coins and have the players rely on their breadth of knowledge of pick up the clue. Is that detracting from the story or is it a plot point of the adventure?

The OP's quote is talking about crafting a story where the reader is entertained through the development of characters and plot. Preparing a game where the players are entertained through the active development of a plot. Since the characters can diverge from the planned path, excercising some forethought about what they might encounter is useful in my mind. Developing other, potentially extraneous, details give the DM the opportunity for inspiration later.

Perhaps it is because I'm an explorer at heart and I always want to see what's over the next hill. Or, in this case, on the next map sheet. And since it provides me with useful background that I can use later, I see no benefit to waiting to see what's beyond the next rise until just before the player's do.

It's pretty late, and I've had a really busy week. Does that explain my point of view clearly enough or is it too obfuscatory?

 

[Hussar]

I can think of an excellent example where world building has become indulgent and that's Forgotten Realms. FR's been in print for what, about 20 years? There's been thousands of pages of material (not adventures, just setting material) banged out for that setting.

And they're not finished yet.

Darth Shoju, I think that we actually agree more than disagree really. If the world buildilng that you do comes out during the game, then, likely, it isn't terribly indulgent. It might be, but, likely not. But, no one is going to tell me that ten or twenty thousand pages of setting material is not indulgent. There's depth and then there's a festering quagmire that no one could possibly sort through. Again, it's building the world's largest library.

Earlier someone mentioned Niven's work on his FTL drives in Mote in God's Eye. There's a perfect example of indulgent world building. What do we remember from the novel? We remember fantastic battle scenes, cool aliens, funky xenobiology and possibly the opening scene of the light sail ship committing suicide. What we don't remember is how the FTL drives work. Thankfully, that information was never brought into the book, because, frankly, it's completely unimportant. Niven did it as a thought experiment and that's fine. But, it's not like it is required in the slightest for the text.

Is all world building indulgence? Probably not. Certainly not if you define world building as all setting construction. Since placing trees in a MMORPG is apparently world building, then, of course you need to do some. Me, I define world building as going beyond what is required for the setting. World building, by nature, is indulgent. If it's required by the text, then it's setting. That's where I draw the line. Obviously, that annoys the heck out of some people who figure that any time you do the slightest bit of setting building, you are world building. To me, that makes world building a meaningless term relative to setting. Why not just dispense with it entirely?

The net is littered with indulgent world building. The front page of Enworld right now advertises a new bit on Fargoth. And, look, it's not an adventure. It's a new race. Color me surprised.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The net is littered with indulgent world building. The front page of Enworld right now advertises a new bit on Fargoth. And, look, it's not an adventure. It's a new race. Color me surprised.

Is a new race not useful? I thought, if it was useful, it wasn't worldbuilding (by your definition)?

I assume that you mean those extraneous details, like mentioning that the players see bunnies while their travelling in the hills, right? Or mentioning the goatherds along the road way, or the milling sheep, or mice....things like that?

 

[Imaro]

Is a new race not useful? I thought, if it was useful, it wasn't worldbuilding (by your definition)?

I assume that you mean those extraneous details, like mentioning that the players see bunnies while their travelling in the hills, right? Or mentioning the goatherds along the road way, or the milling sheep, or mice....things like that?

Apparently the ONLY IMPORTANT THING in a roleplaying game is an adventure, anything else is a waste of time and NOT WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING. Of course we could all just play Descent and then be totally focused on "what's important" in a roleplaying game...wait a minute, that's a boardgame.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Apparently the ONLY IMPORTANT THING in a roleplaying game is an adventure, anything else is a waste of time and NOT WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING. Of course we could all just play Descent and then be totally focused on "what's important" in a roleplaying game...wait a minute, that's a boardgame.

My point in the above, re: "mentioning that the players see bunnies while their travelling in the hills, right? Or mentioning the goatherds along the road way, or the milling sheep, or mice....things like that?" is that, unless the DM does mention things that are extraneous to the plot, the players are going to know that anything he mentions is part of the plot.

For example, how many people ever fell for the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing (originally Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, later 1e Monster Manual 2)? Suddenly the DM is interested in telling us about rabbits? Clearly it's a trap. Likewise, if the players never encounter normal (non life-threatening) animals, the first toad they see is obviously a familiar spying on them.

If you ever read mystery novels, you will know that extraneous details can be used as a kind of literary sleight-of-hand, to heighten the sense of the unknown and to make the relevant bits a little less obvious. People claim that you can't run a murder mystery in D&D because divination spells make it too easy, but divination can only be used when you know the right questions to ask. Details can make it more difficult to know the right questions to ask. In effect, they help to preserve sense of wonder (you knew that was coming, didn't you? ).

BTW, Hamlet in the Forgotten Realms works like this: Hamlet's father is said to be slain by bandits, and his body hasn't been recovered. A ghost appears to Hamlet to tell him that his uncle, who has married his mother, was actually behind the bandits. Hillarity ensues.

Worlds don't get in the way of basic story ideas; lack of imagination does. Just for the record.

RC

 

[Imaro]

My point in the above, re: "mentioning that the players see bunnies while their travelling in the hills, right? Or mentioning the goatherds along the road way, or the milling sheep, or mice....things like that?" is that, unless the DM does mention things that are extraneous to the plot, the players are going to know that anything he mentions is part of the plot.

For example, how many people ever fell for the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing (originally Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, later 1e Monster Manual 2)? Suddenly the DM is interested in telling us about rabbits? Clearly it's a trap. Likewise, if the players never encounter normal (non life-threatening) animals, the first toad they see is obviously a familiar spying on them.

If you ever read mystery novels, you will know that extraneous details can be used as a kind of literary sleight-of-hand, to heighten the sense of the unknown and to make the relevant bits a little less obvious. People claim that you can't run a murder mystery in D&D because divination spells make it too easy, but divination can only be used when you know the right questions to ask. Details can make it more difficult to know the right questions to ask. In effect, they help to preserve sense of wonder (you knew that was coming, didn't you? ).

BTW, Hamlet in the Forgotten Realms works like this: Hamlet's father is said to be slain by bandits, and his body hasn't been recovered. A ghost appears to Hamlet to tell him that his uncle, who has married his mother, was actually behind the bandits. Hillarity ensues.

Worlds don't get in the way of basic story ideas; lack of imagination does. Just for the record.

RC

RC I've agreed with your position throughout this hread...I guess sarcasm doesn't really come across to well on the internet. But yes I agree with most of the things you've said earlier.

 

[LostSoul]

BTW, Hamlet in the Forgotten Realms works like this: Hamlet's father is said to be slain by bandits, and his body hasn't been recovered.

True Res will still work - you just need the King's time and place of birth.