Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Baron Opal]

Plot is necesary to give the adventure direction in the absence of the players. I feel you need to know what the villain is going to do if unthwarted so you know how he's going to react when the players muck up the works.

 

[gizmo33]

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.

I admire your ability to tough out this thread in the face of such bizarre logic that it makes my head spin - I was mostly kidding about your harshness. I don't even know what common English words like "setting" mean anymore. And the irony is that I really like adventures far more than campaign setting material as a consumer, but the arguments on that side are so exaggerated and patronizing that I can't support them respectfully. I wish I could have turned these guys loose on TSR in the 2E days when setting material of dubious quality seemed much more prevalent. Oh well, I bow to your superior Fortitude save. Good luck.

 

[gizmo33]

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.

Me too. But the magic of the internet is that no one can see you laughing when you type stuff like that. Watch this: "Setting is where you set your DM screen in relation to where the players are sitting."

 

[howandwhy99]

Plot is necesary to give the adventure direction in the absence of the players. I feel you need to know what the villain is going to do if unthwarted so you know how he's going to react when the players muck up the works.

I agree. Background, personality, goals, strategy, and even specific tactics (not just in combat) are all nice to have for NPCs. Make all the NPC plots you want.

My point is: plots aren't written for PCs.

(hmm-hmm hmmm hmmm hmmm hmmmmm)

 

[rounser]

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).

Yet another accusation of railroading. No, that's a style of campaign arc. You'd probably understand that if you didn't spend so much time worldbuilding.

 

[rounser]

Me too. But the magic of the internet is that no one can see you laughing when you type stuff like that. Watch this: "Setting is where you set your DM screen in relation to where the players are sitting."

You guys are hypocrites; you ridicule Hussar's stated definition which matches the literal one in the dictionary, whilst turning a blind eye to the fact that RC doesn't even state a definition, and pretending that there's some consensus on a non-literal meaning for a combination of two words which have english meaning, and are in the dictionary. You've got nothing except assumptions based on your own personal bias, and you're so invested in your bias that you can't even see it.

 

[rounser]

I admire your ability to tough out this thread in the face of such bizarre logic that it makes my head spin - I was mostly kidding about your harshness.

At least I understand where you guys are coming from, even if I don't agree. I've "moved beyond" the point where you're at, because your viewpoint was once mine - I shared your assumptions. If this side of the argument really seems that bizarre to you, and you can't see even the smallest kernel of truth to the multiple "rules" and opinions mounted against you, then...wow, quite frankly. I suspected that worldbuilding was a sacred cow, but had no idea it was the King Kong of D&D sacred cows. I suppose it makes sense, worldbuilding is the metahobby which DMs indulge in, and so an attack on that is an attack on the heart of D&D tradition.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But I presume you'd agree that a DM who does some prep work isn't necessarily wasting his time?

You're right. I was merely trying to describe to the incredulous how it is possible to DM with no prep work without defying the laws of physics as if it were some superpower.

If my 0 + 4 = 4, and a prep-heavy 256 page setting bible's 4 + 0 = 4, the equation remains balanced: both of us are having fun gaming our way and both of our games add up to fulfilling, enriched, action-packed, flexible campaigns.

I've got no problem with those who have fun doing prep -- no problem with those who love their world porn and their great clomping nerdism. I currently game under a DM who certainly loves his setting and has prepared a lot of history for it. I can't say as I'm interested in it too much, but it's something he likes to do and as long as it doesn't get in the way, I've no problem with it.

Where I take exception is when it is suggested that prep work has some inherent virtue that elevates the campaigns of those who do it to some greater level of richness and depth that no less-developed campaign can have -- that worldbuilding is something that everyone should do as much of as possible because it will make the game better. Harrison, in a rather provocative way, re-affirms that worldbuilding is not what makes a story good for anyone other than those obsessed with worldbulding minutiae. Rather, for most people, it is a good story that makes a fantasy or sci-fi world worth living in.

The subtle arrogance that developing elven tea ceremonies makes your games richer and deeper and more immersive than those who do not justifies all manner of DM indulgence under the guise of improving the game. Part of my desire was to call a spade a spade and to promote discussion of how much worldbuilding actually makes a D&D game good. The thread has provided a wonderfully re-affirming answer: how much is good is how much is fun for the group (DM and players all), and that amount will vary from campaign to campagin. I'm very happy with that conclusion.

But I still take issue with the subtle arrogance of those who love their setting porn claiming that it makes their games better in a way that those who do not love their setting porn can never match.

A game with more worldbuilding isn't richer -- it just has more worldbuilding. Which can be fun for the players and DM alike to geek out over, but it's not a deeper or more immersive world. It's just a world with more stuff to geek out over. And since a lot of D&D fans are great clomping nerds, it can be a lot of fun geeking out over worldbuilding minutiae. And if you're DMing for someone who loves worldbuilding, you should probably spend a bit of time on it because they're going to love it, just as if you're DMing for someone who loves gnomes, you should probably have gnomes in your game.

Worldbuilding doesn't add anything improv doesn't, they're just two ends of the same spectrum. Both are capable of compensating for 0's at the other side, but both are rather rare because DMs usually aren't as extremist as either Mr. "I'll think about it when the time comes." or Mr. "I've poured 10 years of my life into developing the world of Valendia!"

Both of those extremists can still run some dang fine games, without any noticeable drop in any quality, but with a noticable difference in style.

 

[howandwhy99]

Yet another accusation of railroading. No, that's a style of campaign arc. You'd probably understand that if you didn't spend so much time worldbuilding.

Perhaps if you could explain it to me? Or point to one of the many posts in this thread that does? I've posted my understanding above as to "setting" vs. "world-building". Is that wrong too?


KM - thanks for the explanation. I'm still of the mind that at least some prep can beneficial. But I've gotta agree that the 256 pagers (or 20,000 pagers) are just taking things too far. A DM doesn't need to write a book to run D&D.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

If he's saying that he can consistently stay ahead of the players, then he's not just saying that he's mentally adroit; he's saying that he is more mentally adroit than those players.

I know that I wouldn't make that claim for my own group.

(But thanks for thinking me better than that)

And howandwhy99, your analysis rocked.