A recurring theme I see is that if you don't do world building, you automatically start creating things on the fly. I disagree. You can do a huge amount of prep without doing any world building. However, this does go back to the whole disagreement of what world building is.
Probably true, and seems to be where the fundamental disconnect in this whole dicussion lies. I would suppose that it's because many people, when writing their setting, call what they are doing world building. It rolls off the tongue better, and to them, more accurately describes what they are doing, plus it just sounds cooler.
For me, if that organization/place over the hill/person is necessary for the adventure, then it's not world building.
I guess that's one of the points I was trying to make, although I think it's been stated before upthread, ie, that some things that aren't necessary to the adventure, per sae, can still make the game fun, and it's hard to know in advance what a player is going to latch onto and make a more central part of the plot than was planned. I as a player love doing that, partly out of a perverse pleasure in surprizing the dm occassionaly and making him scramble a bit like he does to the pcs all the time
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
If all that's there are the things that are necessary to the adventure though, that becomes more difficult to do.
not simply placing that hill just there, but explaining how glaciation caused that particular feature 40 thousand years ago. Putting a tree here isn't world building. Detailing how that particular breed of tree is actually somewhat out of place and was planted there as an experiment by a druid 100 years ago is world building.
You have an excellent point here. Let me just say that I've never seen a dm go into that kind of detail, at least not that he'd let the players know about, so it's kind of outside my experience. As a side note let me mention that in college one of my gaming buddies was a Botany grad student, and loved to play druids, and at one point the dm described some trees in a particular area that just happen to be the wrong type of trees for that climate. Instead of just pointing that out, he, in character, stopped the party to examine the trees, casting all sorts of divinations and such, while we all looked on wondering what was so special about these trees. Turns out he honestly thought the dm put them there, out of place on purpose as a chance for his charcter to shine for a moment, and that those trees being there were a very important clue, if he could only figure out what it was. Take from that what you will, I just thought it was a funny story. The look on both of their faces was pretty priceless.
You don't need to make anything up on the fly. I'm absolutely pants at doing that sort of DMing. I LIKE being well prepared.
That part wasn't precicesly directed at you, there was an argument about that earlier though, so I thought I'd address it instead of waiting for someone else to call me on it.
But, what I've come to realize, and this is probably why I like the idea of adventure paths and campaigns in a box, is that most of the setting books are there are pretty much superfluous.
I certainly agree with that, at least when it comes to game time. I do like them for character creation, for instance, in Iron Kingdoms, I can just tell the dm "I want to play a Llaelese Gunmage, basically the dashing younger son of a noble family displaced by the Khadoran occupation" and we're both right there on the same page. Of course the choice of Iron Kingdoms is deliberate, if there ever was an example of world/setting building done right, then IMNSHO that's the one.
However, having seen character background after character background lie mouldering in the back of people's character binders, I would say that the idea that you must have background is highly overrated.
I totally agree with this -- if you're not going to use your own background, why write it? I like to help the dm out on that, by writing proactive character backgrounds, not just reasons why my charcter became an adventurer, but things that actually motivate him/her in game. To use my Laellese Gunmage example again, His family is displaced and now poor, he needs money. He's nobility so any roleplaying encounters with the lower classes are likely to be strained, and interactions with Khadorans are likely to be downright hostile. During downtime I might seek out representatives of the Laeallese underground and do what I can to help them, if we're not in place where I can do that I'll probably try to send money to them from time to time. Over all, making my charcter history part of the story is only, once again IMNSHO, only about 25% the dm's job. It's my job as a player to chase that, to take what I've put there in the past and make it a present concern and a part of the character's life. If I'm not going to reference it at least once in a while, then I don't blame the dm for not going there.
Instead, why not tell the players the theme - "Guys, we're going to do a dragon hunting campaign. Most of the adventures are going to feature dragons in some form." and let the players create characters from that?
That would definitely work, although I've never had a dm do it. I still like more than that to build on, but the best part about worldbuilding or setting or whatever you want to call it for me is when I as a player can get involved too. If something in the background strikes my fancy and gives me an idea, I love the interaction that comes over email or sitting down at IHOP over coffee and a big plate of pancakes with the dm and together fleshing out a culture that he hadn't detailed as much, or that I had a few different ideas for, until we're both happy with it. I love in depth charcter motivation, because like you I love being prepared, even as a player. I don't always think fast on my feet, so the more I know about a character's background and culture, the easier it is for me to act and react in a consistent manner, and to have an answer when the dm says "Ok you guys have some free time in town x, what are you doing?"
Overall, Hussar, I think we agree on a lot of things, just that we say it in different ways. TBH i just thought I'd break it up a bit and come at the question from a player's perspective
