Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[I'm A Banana]

From reading Hussar and Rounser's posts I get the impression, and excuse me if this is wrong, that you both either run railroad adventures, or can read your players minds. I can't see how you know what will and will not be interacted with in a session of gameplay. It would frustrate me in a session where it went something like this...

As someone who runs a lot of adventures that are a light touch on the worldbuilding, I can only say that Archetypes Are Your Friend. 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.

DM: There are torn and tattered wanted posters for the bandit Grok strewn throughout the town proclaiming a reward and asking that any interested parties speak mith Mayor Feold.

Me(as a rogue): I want to find out who the head of the local thieve's guild is and see if I can join.

DM: Uhm...there is no solidified guild for thieve's in this city.

Mistake #1: He said "no." I come from an acting background, I'm very familiar with improv, and one of the core rules of making up a shared something as you go along is "don't contradict what someone else says." You take it and run with it. It's easy to say no. Saying no is lazy. Say yes.

So the DM might be more like:

DM: Okay, give me a Gather Information check as you go throughout the town asking about this guild. Describe it a bit to me.

Just because you don't have the thieves guild lovingly precrafted doesn't mean you can't create a thieves' guild on the fly that is believable and detailed.

I was hoping we'd be able to have a conversion about world builiding as it is commonly defined.

But then again, probably 5 pages back I pointed out that the only way Mr. Harrison's position was defensible is if you defined world building to be negative by definition. But, if you define something to be negative by definition and say, "This straw man concept I've created which is bad by definition is bad.", you really haven't said anything interesting.

But that's not true. Harrison never said "avoid all worldbuilding." He said that the story must always triumph over worldbuilding. Worldbuilding can be positive, but it must be moderated by the actual need to tell a story. In Harrison's advice to writers, worldbuilding for the sake of worldbuilding is pointless and narcissistic nerding out.

In D&D, I feel that this remains fairly true, but that pointless and narcissistic nerding out isn't really a problem in a lot of situations, and that to ensure the story flows smoothly, many DMs who lack significant improv skills will need to build their worlds more.

A little worldbuilding can be a good thing, like puffer fish -- it makes your lips tingle and your heart race. It gives your dish some flavor. But the poison can't be the point. It's still expected to be eaten. Worldbuilding can easily poison an adventure, if you stop working on what you need for that adventure to actually be played.

Ronseur's point that worldbuilding is the "dessert" of adventure design is accurate. Fortunately, in D&D, we're allowed to eat mostly dessert if that's what everyone wants.

 

[Imaro]

As someone who runs a lot of adventures that are a light touch on the worldbuilding, I can only say that Archetypes Are Your Friend. 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.

What archetypes? One minute we're advocating "freedom of what the player's want to play" and now you're speaking of archetypes. To have archetypes, selection of PC choices must be limited to some point, and in order to have, IMHO, real archetypes background and context(ie worldbuilding) is necessary. As far as the thinking about "what if" you can't possibly be able to predict what your players choices are unless you're shaping those choices, in other words railroading.

Mistake #1: He said "no." I come from an acting background, I'm very familiar with improv, and one of the core rules of making up a shared something as you go along is "don't contradict what someone else says." You take it and run with it. It's easy to say no. Saying no is lazy. Say yes.

So the DM might be more like:

DM: Okay, give me a Gather Information check as you go throughout the town asking about this guild. Describe it a bit to me.

Just because you don't have the thieves guild lovingly precrafted doesn't mean you can't create a thieves' guild on the fly that is believable and detailed.

And now we come to the crux of my argument...You just wasted all that time creating the adventure they aren't going to explore. Isn't this the same argument used against worldbuilding in previous posts? Why can't you improv an adventure? Draw up a dungeon, make a list of creatures from the Monster Manual in said dungeon and a list of treasures in said dungeon...voila improv dungeon. In fact, just make the monsters and treasures, even the dungeon up as you go along.

IMHO this illustrates the weakness of the improv things argument...anything can be made up on the fly. With your above statement, all you need to do is show up for a D&D game and make it up. I personally, as a player, would hate this type of game(for D&D anyway). There are certain "indie" rpg's like Mortal Coil, or Seven Leagues where the game mechanics,playstyle and advice are geared for this type of play, and if I'm playing that type of game then cool I accept and enjoy it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And now we come to the crux of my argument...You just wasted all that time creating the adventure they aren't going to explore. Isn't this the same argument used against worldbuilding in previous posts?

Ferris Bueller, you're my hero.

 

[Celebrim]

And now we come to the crux of my argument...You just wasted all that time creating the adventure they aren't going to explore. Isn't this the same argument used against worldbuilding in previous posts? Why can't you improv an adventure? Draw up a dungeon, make a list of creatures from the Monster Manual in said dungeon and a list of treasures in said dungeon...voila improv dungeon. In fact, just make the monsters and treasures, even the dungeon up as you go along.

FTW.

I personally, as a player, would hate this type of game(for D&D anyway).

I've been burned so many times by DM's that claim to be able to just wing it, that if I set down to a session and discovered that the DM was entirely winging it, I'd likely never come to a session again. Being able to create something on the fly is an important DM skill, because you never know exactly where your PC's are going to jump and you can't cover everything. But I don't care who you are, you can never wing the same level of detail and interest that you can put in with preparation.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

FTW.
I've been burned so many times by DM's that claim to be able to just wing it, that if I set down to a session and discovered that the DM was entirely winging it, I'd likely never come to a session again. Being able to create something on the fly is an important DM skill, because you never know exactly where your PC's are going to jump and you can't cover everything. But I don't care who you are, you can never wing the same level of detail and interest that you can put in with preparation.

I know that this is kinda going in circles but I agree with this, as far as DM's running adventures go. I dont care for improvised adventures that much when I run adventures I try to be very familiar with that path or flow of the adventure as well as the encounter areas. Of course I tend to run pre-written adventures mainly because they actually take less time to prepare than if I were to craft my own from scratch.

And as far as railroading goes, I really think that posters who use this as a term of derison need to reconsider whether it's use in that fashion is going to lead to a productive discussion. I think I've said this before but every table is different and there's a certain type of contract that needs to be stated with each group or game even before play starts.

In my case I let my potential players know what I'm going to be running. I let them know at the beginning what ruleset were using and what additional books we'll be using. I let them know that I'll be running a modified pre-written adventure or adventure path. Because I'm using the adventure path does not mean that I don't want input on what their characters are interested in. Even after the game starts, I still ask for input and try to work things in for each character to make the story matter to them. Sometimes we can get sidetracked for a few sessions for someones story or stories, other times their story gets tied directly into the AP. Is that wrong? No.

I let my players know that I dont run free form games. It really takes too much effort and I dont have the patience anymore. Even with a greatly detailed world in advance, you'll still wind up doing more work than you want to. If the PC's decide that they want to go fight Hobgoblins in the YVelchek, but YVelchek is across the country from where the PC's are and they want to fight Hobgoblins NOW. as a DM do you move the location closer so the PC's can have thier fun? or do you stick to your beloved map / world that you crafted and make the PC's travel? If you change things up are you a bad DM?

I've already said that ther's nothing wrong with worldbuilding if that's your thing. Personally I think it has more to do with the ego (and this is not a slam) of the DM and their need craft a world more than anything. If it didnt then it would be more of collaborative effort between the DM and the PC's. Which is one of the reasons why I like using the AP's and not using a specific campaign world. I start with a general location and based on the path and the interest of the PC's we go from there. By the time they reach 10th level or so they are going to have a pretty fleshed out world, or at least the part of the world that is important to them.

One of my PC's is interested in getting magical tattoos, so in between sessions while I found a suitable mechanic for them I also came up with where he'd be able to find someone to craft said tattoo. Of course I worked it into the AP as one of the people who would be able to tell him where to go is located in one of thier mission objectives. Is that railroading? or is that getting creative when working within certain "constraints". See that's the thing with this part of the discussion and I think that Umbran pointed this out earlier, worldbuilding isnt digital it's analog. There's a range of what people are willing to do. To me I dont see the value of building a WHOLE LOT before hand. I do build SOME before hand but just the area that the PC's are starting in and with an AP most of that is done for you.

If either side can't accept that there are valid points to both methods then why even discuss this, because right now it seems that this has turned into a "my side is valid and your side is balls" type of discussion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

this has turned into a "my side is valid and your side is balls" type of discussion.

Turned into? Did you read the OP? Can't you see the thread title?

This was a "my side is valid and your side is balls" type of discussion from the word Go. It was set up that way. Even before I posted with an evocative, two word answer.


RC

 

[Imperialus]

I think it's important to strike a ballance between world building and letting it evolve organically. After all it doesn't matter if you have written a 26 generation royal dynasty out in detail or invented your own language. No player (I have ever met) is going to have the time or dedication to slog through it. Sometimes inspiration will hit and you'll end up with something like the 28 page single spaced trestise on dwarven culture that I wrote up a year or so ago but from there you need to use it to inform your game, not hand it out as required reading at the begining of a campaign.

Players are part of the world too so it's important that you are flexable enough to allow them to mould the world as well. If a player wants to play a monk, or a hexblade or a more unusual class then it makes sence to create a culture that would produce a monk. This isn't to say that you nessesarally have to throw open the library and let your players go hog wild creating half dragon, teifling, paladin, hunter of the dead, psions if it doesn't fit but flexibility is nessesary, and makes the campaign richer, more alive, and more fun. D&D does require some structure however, it's not as freeform as some other RPG's such as Shadowrun but the ability to ballance freedom with structure is cruitial to any good campaign.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And now we come to the crux of my argument...You just wasted all that time creating the adventure they aren't going to explore. Isn't this the same argument used against worldbuilding in previous posts? Why can't you improv an adventure? Draw up a dungeon, make a list of creatures from the Monster Manual in said dungeon and a list of treasures in said dungeon...voila improv dungeon. In fact, just make the monsters and treasures, even the dungeon up as you go along.

I think you missed the point, namely: you can improv an adventure. And a dungeon. And monsters and treasures. 3e makes this ridiculously simple, actually. And I do. All the time. If I throw a wanted poster at the PC's, I haven't probably developed anything past the fact that the town guard wants a guy enough to hire mercenaries to chase after him. Depending on my feelings at the moment and the archetype of the campaign, he might just be a guilty guy they're looking for (for a party that's a bunch of "sell-swords"), or a victim of political machinations (for a campaign that likes a bit of intrigue), or the agent of the Necromancer King (for one of those epic slay-the-deep-evil campaigns), or any one of a hundred different ideas knocking around my head.

I didn't create the adventure for the wanted guy any more than I created the adventure for the thieves' guild.

So in answer to your question, why can't I? The answer is I can. I do. It's not really that hard, and it's a lot of fun for me.

What archetypes? One minute we're advocating "freedom of what the player's want to play" and now you're speaking of archetypes. To have archetypes, selection of PC choices must be limited to some point, and in order to have, IMHO, real archetypes background and context(ie worldbuilding) is necessary. As far as the thinking about "what if" you can't possibly be able to predict what your players choices are unless you're shaping those choices, in other words railroading.

Archetypes don't have a background or context, though. The Necromancer King is an archetype: some sort of royalty with a lot of undead guards. I don't need any background or context to imagine what a Necromancer King looks or acts like. He's in a throne room surrounded by ghouls and he wears a crown made of human hands and platinum. The castle is ruined.

From there, I can build whatever relevant world information I need. The Necromancer King is the king of an ancient empire who never died. Call it "The Empire of Varlerin." He's a lich. He's a True Necromancer from Heroes of Horror. His main weapon is an endless army of zombies, and his more effective weapons are ghouls and wraiths. He's making motions to invade the PC's city.

You don't need to limit character types because all character types are archetypes. Paladins are "Knights in Shining Armor." Druids are "Friends of Nature." Fighters are "Guys who stick the pointy end into the squishy guy." Swashbucklers are "Wannabe Errol Flynns." All those archetypes have a host of world suggestions that come along with them, that can depict how the world is.

Again, the idea comes from my experience with improv. Again, it hardly requires any work outside of the game itself. I've gotta have a general idea of the archetypes and think of interesting ways for them to interact or be questioned, and it's really not hard. What if the Fighter is set upon by mind-controlled innocents? What if the Paladin has to oust corruption from his own church? What if the Druid becomes an agent of assassination for the Defenders of Nature, a shadowy organization with close ties to the Worgs (and thus the local goblins)?

The crux of our argument is irrelevant because the conciet that you need to do a lot of work before an adventure for the adventure is false. You only need to do what you want to do.

IMHO this illustrates the weakness of the improv things argument...anything can be made up on the fly. With your above statement, all you need to do is show up for a D&D game and make it up. I personally, as a player, would hate this type of game(for D&D anyway). There are certain "indie" rpg's like Mortal Coil, or Seven Leagues where the game mechanics,playstyle and advice are geared for this type of play, and if I'm playing that type of game then cool I accept and enjoy it.

:shrug:

You're welcome to not enjoy the playstype, but it's perfectly valid, perfectly delightful, and perfectly realized. I don't need a page of notes to help me be creative at the table. Not everyone has that talent, but it makes the game a lot more fun for me to not know what's going to happen before it does.

It's false to assume that games like this lack verisimilitude and depth (not that you are saying that, just that it's a common assumption to make about more improvised games). My necromancer king has an empire, a motif, a motive, and I just spent all the time writing this post thinking that up.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The crux of our argument is irrelevant because the conciet that you need to do a lot of work before an adventure for the adventure is false. You only need to do what you want to do.

So, in essence, all prep work is bad. Am I understanding that properly?

Presumably this also includes the prep work of the players (character creation) and rules design, too. After all, I can just make up rules on the spot, and you can just decide how strong you are when it comes up in the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, in essence, all prep work is bad. Am I understanding that properly?

Nope. Just that no prep work is absolutely necessary.

It's only bad if it gets in the way of your group having fun. And some DM's have a lot of fun doing prep work. So for them, it's good. Heck, many DMs need to do at least a bit of prep work before the game just because not all of them are great at improvisation. It's good for these DMs to do whatever prep work they need, because if they didn't do it, the game would be less fun. It can get bad when the prep work becomes the *reason* for the game, if the players don't enjoy it as much as the DM.

D&D is a vehicle for indulging your fantasies, after all. Dessert is delicious to eat. Worldbuilding is fun to do. Harrison just wants writers to eat their main course and treat dessert as dessert. I'm willing to believe that D&D can just be people eating ice cream if that's all they want.

After all, I can just make up rules on the spot, and you can just decide how strong you are when it comes up in the game.

DMs do this all the time. It's called "fudging," or "adjudicating" or "setting the DC of a task." They decide on the spot how strong something is, how well you can perform, how effective a given strategy is.

Of course, it's a more than a bit specious to suggest that the basis for all rules *should* be done at the table, but from what I understand a lot of groups do enjoy a lot more free-form rules than D&D provides. I prefer a common baseline, which does require someone to do rules prep work for me, but that's my own desire for interesting system complexity, for a diverse and durable tool for playing adventures. Not everyone likes that, of course.