Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Hussar]

Oh, great. Another meaningless bit of semantic nonsense proffered in a desperate attempt to salvage an untenable position.

Out of morbid curiosity: What meaningful distinction are you drawing between "used in the session" and "used in the adventure"?

(Meaningful in the context of this discussion, you understand.)

Create a dungeon crawl with ten encounters and a non-linear map. It is quite possible that you will not actually use some of those encounters. However, it is still possible that you might use any of those encounters. Thus, it's used in the adventure, but, not used in a session.

Shame you can't use your powers of snark to read the Dungeon Master's Guide.

 

[JustinA]

The DMG splits world building off from adventure design in exactly, precisely the same place I do - relavence. Everything you need to craft an adventure is included under Chapter 4 - Adventures. Everything that relates to a setting that is only tangentially linked to an adventure is contained under....

Wait for it...

Chapter 6 World Building.

I had to go dig my DMG 3.0 out, but it was totally worth it. On the very first page of Chapter 6 two different approaches to world-building are defined: Inside Out and Outside In. Allow me to quote:

"Inside Out: Start with a small area and build outward. Don't even worry about what the world looks like, or even the kingdom. Concentrate first on a single village or town, preferably with a dungeon or other adventure site nearby. Expand slowly and only as needed." (emphasis added)

You'll notice that, contrary to supporting your position as you claim, the DMG explicitly contradicts it.

It shares this trait in common with every other source you've attempted to cite or quote to support your completely untenable and utterly useless definition of "world-building".

I mean, it's nice of you to keep providing all these resources which prove you wrong. But at what point are you simply going to admit the error of your ways? Aren't you getting tired of punching yourself in the face like this?

 

[JustinA]

Create a dungeon crawl with ten encounters and a non-linear map. It is quite possible that you will not actually use some of those encounters. However, it is still possible that you might use any of those encounters. Thus, it's used in the adventure, but, not used in a session.

So it's not "in a session" it's merely "might be in a session".

You'll note that this neatly removes your distinction entirely, since no matter what I create it might end up in a gaming session.

I suppose you'll respond with some further semantic nonsense about the LIKELIHOOD of something appearing in a gaming session. This will raise questions like, "Which gaming session, exactly? Does it need to be the very next session? Or is it okay for me to prep a few sessions in advance?" And, "So it's a matter of the probability of something appearing? How probable does it need to be, exactly, before it becomes setting instead of world-building?"

These questions will stymie you. So you'll either (a) ignore them; (b) claim that these questions constitute ad hominem; (c) attempt some unpredictable semantic nonsense to avoid the issue; or (d) pout for a bit and then repeat your initial assertions as if they hadn't been thoroughly discredited a dozen times over.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, from here on out, I am defining world building as what is contained in Chapter 6 of the Third Edition Dungeon Master's Guide. If it is contained within those specified pages, then I consider it to be world building within the context of this discussion.

I suppose you'll respond with some further semantic nonsense about the LIKELIHOOD of something appearing in a gaming session. This will raise questions like, "Which gaming session, exactly? Does it need to be the very next session? Or is it okay for me to prep a few sessions in advance?" And, "So it's a matter of the probability of something appearing? How probable does it need to be, exactly, before it becomes setting instead of world-building?"

Please, look up the definition of a spectrum. If you do so, it will answer all of your questions quite nicely. I have stated, time and time again, that there is NO CUT OFF POINT! There is no point where red becomes orange. If you know where that is, you better be applying for a Nobel Prize, because no one else in the world can. At one end of the spectrum, you have elements that will always feature in an adventure and at the other end, you have elements that will not feature in the adventure.

The Five Shires are detailed in X1 The Isle of Dread. However, they are not once referred to in the actual adventure. No NPC comes from there and there is pretty much no way to get to the Five Shires from the Isle (without a whole lot of travel time at least). The details of the Five Shires is completely and utterly superflous to the adventure. That's world building.

The central plateau where the Black Pearl rests is key to the Isle of Dread. It's the setting for the climax to the module. It's referenced multiple times throughout the module. That's pretty much as close to setting as you can get because you cannot complete the module without going there.

However, and I've admitted this multiple times, there are lots of things in the middle that may or may not be needed. I tend to err on the lighter side of work because I'm lazy. Some may go the other way. However, there becomes a point where the details you create are not going to factor into the module without some major arm wrestling on the part of the DM or rewriting the adventure itself.

I hope this becomes clear because I don't know how else to say it. There is a spectrum, a continuum, a range with Keep on the Borderlands on the one side and Realmslore articles on the other.

These questions will stymie you. So you'll either (a) ignore them; (b) claim that these questions constitute ad hominem; (c) attempt some unpredictable semantic nonsense to avoid the issue; or (d) pout for a bit and then repeat your initial assertions as if they hadn't been thoroughly discredited a dozen times over.

Please, before you try again, open up your DMG. Take a look at what the creators of 3rd edition considered to be world building. Think about how that relates to the idea of world building vs setting. Take a deep breath or three. Come on back.

 

[Hussar]

BTW:

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.

The fact that you have crappy players is totally irrelevant to this discussion. But it does help to explain where you're coming from.

You asked for examples of the point of view that if you don't do world building you're not playing the game right. Here's a good one. Several of my players world build according to your definition. However, since they don't force that world building into the game, they are crappy players. And, of course, the corollary of this is that any player that doesn't engage in character background is a crappy player.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Do you have a quote?

City: Sassarine in the current AP, he complained about the pages wasted on the rulers thereof as an example of worldbuilding.

Hill: When I mentioned bunnies on a hill, he said that was setting, but if you described how the hill had been used for halfling sacrifices (or somesuch) or how it had been formed due to glacial action, that would be worldbuilding.

(Others noting, of course, that the glacial action or halfling sacrifices could have been as much setting-for-flavour as mentioning bunnies, despite his contention to the contrary.)

I will go back and find the quotes, if you agree that my doing so means that Hussar's points are not what you think they are. Otherwise, why bother?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So it's not "in a session" it's merely "might be in a session".

You'll note that this neatly removes your distinction entirely, since no matter what I create it might end up in a gaming session.

Hussar obviously doesn't define the adventure as "what occurs in the gaming session".

I suppose you'll respond with some further semantic nonsense about the LIKELIHOOD of something appearing in a gaming session. This will raise questions like, "Which gaming session, exactly? Does it need to be the very next session? Or is it okay for me to prep a few sessions in advance?" And, "So it's a matter of the probability of something appearing? How probable does it need to be, exactly, before it becomes setting instead of world-building?"

These questions will stymie you. So you'll either (a) ignore them; (b) claim that these questions constitute ad hominem; (c) attempt some unpredictable semantic nonsense to avoid the issue; or (d) pout for a bit and then repeat your initial assertions as if they hadn't been thoroughly discredited a dozen times over.

They've already been asked, upthread, and they've already been ignored.

(You will note also that Hussar didn't answer my points about the wiki he previously used as an authority, because they didn't support him, nor did he answer your point quoting the DMG -- which explicitly suggests placing adventure setting as part of the process of worldbuilding -- while claiming that what lies in the DMG world building chapter is worldbuilding.)

RC

 

[rounser]

I will go back and find the quotes, if you agree that my doing so means that Hussar's points are not what you think they are. Otherwise, why bother?

I don't trust you not to twist things around to your liking, because you've been doing it for many pages of this thread. Until you come up with the quotes, rather than your interpretation of them, I don't believe you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't trust you not to twist things around to your liking, because you've been doing it for many pages of this thread. Until you come up with the quotes, rather than your interpretation of them, I don't believe you.

Even if I came up with the quotes, slathered them with butter, and served them on a silver tray, you wouldn't believe me.

Example me one thing I've twisted around to my liking, please. You do that, and I'll Search for the quotes. I'll even Take 20 on it.

RC

 

[rounser]

You asked for examples of the point of view that if you don't do world building you're not playing the game right. Here's a good one.

I'd also add that if adventure hooks from future adventures that the DM has chosen to make "on offer" in the campaign are built into character backgrounds, rather than irrelevant worldbuilding claptrap, then this problem can be avoided. It's yet another example of how much more utility adventure building has than world building.