Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[gizmo33]

You're playing a deliberate trick with words there.

You're right, it's not polite for RC to use people's ambiguous definitions in unapproved ways.

Your worldbuilding isn't "setting" by his definition if it doesn't manifest in some form as support for an adventure,

Most DM scribbles have the potential to manifest itself as support for an adventure. Even a lame adventure title might inspire one to create the rest of the adventure, therefore making it "setting" material. Therefore, I have to consider all setting material as bad because the risk is that lame adventure titles will gain respect otherwise.

And it's not in a dictionary, because it's a turn of phrase, which literally means "building a world" in the english language.

"Fire fighter" is in my dictionary. Then again, I'm sure a noun really isn't a noun unless it manifests itself as support for a verb.

Setting, on the other hand, means something entirely different....and it's actually in the dictionary. Hmm...not looking good for that argument of yours, better try another.

It's a good thing you've brought your expertise with you regarding dictionary construction. Otherwise I would be totally lost if you weren't there to tell me what I ought to conclude from what I'm reading.

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

Speed chess can be fun, but it still requires hours of study and practice. Moreover, playing speed chess isn't a great strategy when your opponent can take as much time as he or she desires. Can you still be great at chess? Sure, but the best take their time.

Can you tell me you make every decision in life in 5 seconds flat? Reflection and planning has value that isn't superfluous navel gazing. I find it hard to believe that you are spontaneous in every aspect of your life. I'm fine with the idea that this is your favorite style of DMing. But I presume you'd agree that a DM who does some prep work isn't necessarily wasting his time?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Can you tell me you make every decision in life in 5 seconds flat? Reflection and planning has value that isn't superfluous navel gazing. I find it hard to believe that you are spontaneous in every aspect of your life. I'm fine with the idea that this is your favorite style of DMing. But I presume you'd agree that a DM who does some prep work isn't necessarily wasting his time?

Not only that, but you need to notice the subtle insult to his players. Apparently, KM can always think one or more moves ahead of them, no matter what.

 

[gizmo33]

Not only that, but you need to notice the subtle insult to his players. Apparently, KM can always think one or more moves ahead of them, no matter what.

Are you sure you're not reading too much into it? I took KMs statements as rather self-deprecating, as in "I don't use any ideas in my games that take me more than a minute to come up with." I didn't see where he said he stayed ahead of his players. It's an open question whether or not his players are as familiar with the archetypes as he is (and if you think "world building vs. setting" is bad, just imagine a "archetype vs. cliche" debate...)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are you sure you're not reading too much into it? I took KMs statements as rather self-deprecating, as in "I don't use any ideas in my games that take me more than a minute to come up with." I didn't see where he said he stayed ahead of his players. It's an open question whether or not his players are as familiar with the archetypes as he is (and if you think "world building vs. setting" is bad, just imagine a "archetype vs. cliche" debate...)

I could probably dredge through this thread and find it.....If it hasn't been editted away.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You don't need to read characters mind's or run a railroad, you just have to think about "what *would* happen if..." slightly more than the players do.

I might be reading that a bit harshly, but I've yet to meet the individual who can consitently think "what would happen if" slighty more than the players do without prep work. This seems to imply to me a subtle insult to KM's players. Of course, as I said, I might be reading that a bit harshly.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Is creating setting world-building

Sci-fi writer M John Harrison tells you why you don't need to spend hours crafting your campaign setting:

Apparently so.

 

[howandwhy99]

I know this may appear redundant, but you guys are on page 23. My understanding still is: Hussar and Rounser are playing stories while everyone else is playing games. Stories have plots. Games don't. Plots are predetermined by definition. Games aren't (or Vegas owes me big).

Now I know, since the advent of the DL adventures plots have become status quo. That even the "Choose Your Own Adventure" style plotting has become considered de rigeur for running a railroad-free game. For myself, I can only shake my head and disagree. This style is still laying down tracks; it just presumes to know when and where they divide.

The misunderstanding about "setting" and "world-building", again, as I understand it, is directly related to riding these plots. Plots weave around the country like freeways. "Setting" is the freeway barrier on either side. "World-building" is everything beyond those barriers.

So, if you're telling a story, regardless of the number of plot threads, anything that doesn't count as "setting" is pointless. The freeway, the plot, is the only thing that matters. The rest is pretty much just scenery (which can be painted with as much detail as the DM cares to give it. It will never influence anything anyways).

If you're not telling a story, if you are playing a game, a simulation game that is very, very much like real life, then world-building is a necessity (whether done spontaneously or not).

How can this possibly work? Won't chaos break out without plots? Isn't everything pointless then? Well, think back to all the pre-1986 adventures. Some were designed for tournaments, true, but never a one had a plot. What they did have were limited scope and proscribed goals. Why? Because players had only 4 hours to achieve some kind of success within them. Not to mention everyone was being graded on their achievements as well, so, in competition, each group worked to best as much of the module as possible within the alloted time.

In home "campaigns" the action doesn't need to stop. Success and achievement don't run on a timeline; they occur as appropriate based on how everything plays out. Goals are not needed either. The group, a bunch of heroes remember, choose their own goals and live or die by them. That's freedom of choice, of desire. They are responsible for what happens to them, not the DM. It also invests them in the game.

The other consideration is "Scope". That's a big one for me as it factors in on how I run high-level adventures too. In a campaign scope has no boundaries. Certain adventure locales of course do. These are modules and are called that as they are modular. They are designed to fit into your world, not "setting". While they are uniform, there are no real boundaries around them. No freeway barriers. Nothing but world and perhaps more modules. The idea is, scope can grow and grow and grow just as your players increase in level. A high level adventure will have little in low level detail, but will have great breadth of scope. They are still difficult to publish as it's hard to generalize what low-level details the players may have been rewarded with to call on as resources in the larger module.

It's a little like smaller circles overlapping or concentric of bigger ones. And then all are inside a big petri dish. When the game starts it's like adding heat. Everything starts to go wild where the PCs are and the heat turns up with every action.

Again, why aren't plots needed? Because in the real world I haven't needed others to decide my goals, my actions, or my choices for me since I was a child. Who ever needed plots then when they played "let's pretend" games? Most adults on this planet seem to get along just fine without others determining a plot for their lives. In fact, to suggest otherwise is against freedom. It's against everything we stand for. I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]

 

[Baron Opal]

Not only that, but you need to notice the subtle insult to his players. Apparently, KM can always think one or more moves ahead of them, no matter what.

Oh, come on. You know as well as anybody else that he's just saying he's mentally adroit on his feet. You're better than that, Crowking.

 

[JustinA]

See, there is a perfectly good word for talking about where the action occurs in a story - it's called setting. When you building the place where teh action occurs, you are building setting. But, apparently, that bit of simple English isn't highbrow enough. So, we need a totally new word. World building. Wow, that sounds just so much more impressive than setting building. We're not just crafting a well thought out setting, we're making A WHOLE WORLD.

See, there is a perfectly good wood for talking about where the action in a fantasy story takes place -- it's called "the world". When you are building the place where a fantasy story occurs, you are building the world. But, apparently, that simple English isn't highbrow enough. So, we need a totally new term. CRAFTING A SETTING. Wow, that sounds just so much more impressive than world building. We're not just making a world, we're carefully crafting a setting that's PERFECT FOR THE STORY.

...

I'm deeply suspicious when people take words or terms which have a common meaning, attempt to redefine them in some sort of arbitrary fashion, and then claim that their new definitions should be universally understood to be THE ONE TRUE MEANING OF THE TERM.

They're usually playing a stupid and meaningless semantics game like the one you're playing.

Instead of trying to ram your non-standard definitions of commonly used terms down people's throats, why don't you just discuss the underlying issue?

So, let's discuss the difference between "setting created for a specific purpose in a particular story" and "setting created without a specific purpose in mind".

When it comes to RPGs, how -- exactly -- do you tell the difference? You cite the example of deciding that a particular hill was once the site of halfling religious rituals as "indulgent" and "unnecessary". But, in D&D, the relevancy of that information is no farther away than a bardic knowledge check or a legend lore spell.

Similarly, when I prepped my current Ptolus campaign the first thing I did was read through the 600 page book and carefully made notes detailing how various locations, NPCs, and organizations would need to be changed in order to fit into the existing cosmology and history of my established campaign world. You'd probably call this indulgent since I had no immediate purpose in mind for much of this work. But in the very first session there were at least a dozen instances of the players asking questions or the PCs going to places that I hadn't anticipated -- but that, thankfully, I had prepped answers for.

When it comes to RPGs, your distinction between "good setting (that was needed for the adventure)" and "bad setting (that wasn't needed for the adventure)" can only be determined after the fact. You look back at the adventure and say, "Huh. Guess I didn't need all that information about the hierarchy of the Thieves' Guild, since the PCs just ignored all that and went straight to the dragon's lair. So I guess that was all self-indulgent 'world-building'. Shame on me."

Take the hill with bunnies and the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing encounter. Placing rabbits on a hill is not world building. It's just setting. It's creates an atmosphere of idyllic peace.

Okay, so having bunnies on a hill is "good setting" -- it's needed...

I'll leave articles on the color of rooftops in Forgotten Realms to those who truly appreciate the value of world building.

But the color of a rooftop is "bad setting" -- it's not needed?

What's the distinction, exactly? How far does this go? When I mention that the nobleman the player's are talking to is wearing silk is that "bad setting" or "good setting"? What if I mention what color the silk is?

At what point can we say, hey, y'know what? That's a bit much. Twenty THOUSAND pages of setting material is slightly overkill. Five or six THOUSAND statted monsters is slightly on the high side. Several hundred races is probably just a tad more than necessary. A couple of thousand PrC's is just a smidgeon unnecessary.

5000 monsters do me no good if what I need for a particular scenario is the 5001st monster that would have been in the next supplement.

I've never understood people who get upset when more choices are offered to them. More choices means that there's a higher likelihood that something I want and/or need will be available when I want and/or need it.