Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Raven Crowking]

Anyone can do what I do.

That I agree with.

What I am skeptical about is that what you do is as good as you think it is.

 

[Imaro]

KM, who are these numerous sources...One was listed as pertains to D&D, as far as a writer stating that, he's writing and knows exactly what's needed to tell his particular story. He doesn't have to improvise or create something because his protagonist decided to go in direction A instead of B. I actually think the usage of an author's oppinion on this has nothing to do with playing a game and has been used out of context for no good reason.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That I agree with.

What I am skeptical about is that what you do is as good as you think it is.

Good for what?

My players are all fantastically happy, interested in the world and their characters, come back week after week, and compliment that I'm the best DM they've ever had, in a variety of different groups with a vast menagerie of personality types and backgrounds of players and play styles.

I don't think I need to do any better just to satisfy the skepticism of some critic on the internet, really. I don't know how anyone can accurately judge my chosen method of imagining to be an elf for four hours as badwrongfun because it doesn't mesh with their experience of imagining to be an elf for four hours.

KM, who are these numerous sources...One was listed as pertains to D&D, as far as a writer stating that, he's writing and knows exactly what's needed to tell his particular story. He doesn't have to improvise or create something because his protagonist decided to go in direction A instead of B. I actually think the usage of an author's oppinion on this has nothing to do with playing a game and has been used out of context for no good reason.

You build worlds to tell stories in D&D.

You build worlds to tell stories in fiction.

It absolutely has something to do with playing a game in which there is a world being built and a story being told, just as referencing Tolkein or Leiber or Howard or Lovecraft or any other writer has to do with this game.

 

[rounser]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that what is useful is something that supports game play....

Alright, I'll give you this: Something like deciding on the stock of a magic item shop is directly relevant to gameplay (i.e. it is involved in deciding what the PCs have on their persons), and is not an adventure. The problem is that a lot of what falls under the heading "worldbuilding" will never see play in a way like this, and may "support play" so indirectly that the players might never notice if it had never been written, or might "meh" it away as being of no relevance to them because it's not relevant to the adventure and the campaign, only relevant to the world.

It's easier to assume that most worldbuilding that isn't adventure-related is nowhere near as game-affecting as the contents of a magic item shop, adventure taxes, or laws that land PCs in jail. For the players to care about it, worldbuilding needs to be dynamic in affecting them directly, and most worldbuilding that doesn't support an adventure isn't because the adventure is most of what PCs interact with, and therefore can be considered a waste of time and effort in the case of a lot of what falls under the heading "worldbuilding" and is never manifested in an adventure of any sort.

You may consider this an admission of the "bad worldbuilding is bad" tautology, but I'd call it the "most of what is considered worldbuilding will probably never see play in a meaningful way, unless it's anchored to an adventure or otherwise affects the PCs directly."

 

[Raven Crowking]

My players are all fantastically happy, interested in the world and their characters, come back week after week, and compliment that I'm the best DM they've ever had, in a variety of different groups with a vast menagerie of personality types and backgrounds of players and play styles.

Good on you.

Any of them reguler EN World posters?

Or, better yet, maybe you'll get a chance to run a no-prep game for me at some point.

I've changed my mind before when it made sense to do so; I'm not changing it on your say-so.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You may consider this an admission of the "bad worldbuilding is bad" tautology, but I'd call it the "most of what is considered worldbuilding will probably never see play in a meaningful way, unless it's anchored to an adventure or otherwise affects the PCs directly."

I would agree that "most prep work or rules work of any sort will probably never see play in a meaningful way, unless it's anchored to an adventure or otherwise affects the PCs directly." Why single out worldbuilding?

 

[rounser]

Why single out worldbuilding?

Because it's emphasised as a metahobby by so many DMs, above and beyond what is actually useful as game prep - more as a "game within the game" where the objective is to create and show off some sort of verisimilitudinal magnum opus of worldbuilding genius through the convenient medium of a D&D game...as opposed to the more pure goal of running a fun campaign, and sod the "look at my cool world" ego-based stuff.

I've played in several campaigns which have yielded yawns because the main event is the DM showing off his world, with worldbuilding occupying the lions share of time and effort in development, and adventures as a threadbare backburner afterthought. This is unfortunate, because the adventures are what the players actually end up playing, not the world. I think a good deal of "bad GM" behaviour can be traced back to putting worldbuilding first and foremost at the expense of other priorities.

And oh look, that happens to be what the guy quoted by the OP was effectively arguing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You build worlds to tell stories in D&D.

You build worlds to tell stories in fiction.

If you took a writing class (or read some good books on writing), you would know that stories are composed of setting, plot, theme, style, and character. While our modern take on this seems to focus on plot, plot hasn't always been the most important part of all fiction. There is much of Dickens, for instance, that focuses on setting, and while most people can tell you something of the theme of Uncle Tom's Cabin, few know the plot. Virginia Woolf focused largely on character.

The best stories, I would argue, are not the page-turners, but the ones that balance these elements well. Where plot, setting, theme, style, and character all become melded to the point where you cannot easily remove bits of one without unravelling bits of the others. This is very similar to the LotR movies, where every change made by PJ required more changes down the road, altering plot, theme, and character -- and, ultimately, style and setting as well -- in order to accomodate them.

I would argue that the same is true for D&D games.

In one session, my players decided to wait three months so that the paladin could get a custom suit of armour made. I gave them a quick summary of what occurred during that time, including news of the death of a distant prince and mention that a chess-like game played with carved dragons on a circular board had become a local fad. The players appreciated the last detail (even though it was irrelevant to anything) and had their PCs spend time learning the game. They even bought an expensive board.

Things become relevant because the players and/or the DM make them so.

This wasn't part of an adventure, and didn't need to impact the players directly at all. They chose to make it impact them. It is my job to be the facilitator of opportunities to make the adventure matter, the world matter, and the characters matter.

Doing less is.....well, it results in less.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I've played in several campaigns which have yielded yawns because the main event is the DM showing off his world, with worldbuilding occupying the lions share of time and effort in development, and adventures as a threadbare backburner afterthought.

And I have run into DMs whose campaigns (and writers whose novels) have yielded yawns because the adventures are not grounded well enough into the world in which they are supposed to take place.

But, overall, I would agree that if the DM is writing an amature novel with you as the captive audience, it's time to walk from the table.

OTOH, that's something that everyone agreed on from the beginning of this thread. Everyone does not agree, however, that Harrison is saying what you and I agree on.

This is unfortunate, because the adventures are what the players actually end up playing, not the world. I think a good deal of "bad GM" behaviour can be traced back to putting worldbuilding first and foremost at the expense of other priorities.

Some of the things that my current players single out as being the great moments of the game come about due to the world, or as byproducts of the world. Example: Chatting to a tentacled horror, discussing religion with cultists ("But you can't sacrifice innocent people!" "No one is innocent." "What about babies! You can't sacrifice babies!" "We are all born into sin." etc.), and realizing that the Wizard Keye's assistant was actually in love with the wizard. Of course, I have players who want their characters to go fishing, to lure aquatic sheep out of lakes, and who enjoy conversing with fictional entities. They enjoy figuring out what's going on around them, and being part of it.

OTOH, that stuff never overshadows the action, and I am not reading them pages of descriptive text either. I have no desire to run the type of game that I would walk away from! I certainly agree that the DM should have "Why should the players care" in mind when presenting material at the table, and the DM should definitely follow up on anything that the players indicate that they do care about.

As I said in a previous post, it is successfully melding storytelling elements that creates the best campaign experiences. Also, DMs should play to their strengths and bolster their weaknesses, whatever they may be.


RC

 

[rounser]

And I have run into DMs whose campaigns (and writers whose novels) have yielded yawns because the adventures are not grounded well enough into the world in which they are supposed to take place.

Yes, many is the time I've yawned at an FR campaign that "needed more Drizzt", or had my character say, "Don't worry, Elminster will fix it", and had him sit down to wait for Elminster to turn up and do so, only to find that didn't actually end up happening. That waiting got rather boring, and I yawned a great deal. I had to check with the DM that the game was really set on Faerun.