Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Raven Crowking]

Why don't we discuss what bad worldbuilding is, why it happens, common pitfalls, etc. That would be more interesting to me than going round-and-round on this same issue.

That would actually be interesting. Somewhere up there, in one post, I mentioned a few "bad worldbuilding" problems.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

just look at ENWorld. The automatic new campaign thing is "what published setting should I use" or "check out my new homebrew setting ideas". The sound of crickets with regard to adventures or campaign arc material is deafening

Is it even slightly possible that people simply feel they need/want more input on the macro-level than on the micro-level? Is it possible that their players also visit EN World, and thus they don't want to post actual encounters?

(Mine do, but I still did three threads with actual encounters, one of which was lost to the system crash.)

Where are all these story hours coming from if no one does encounter-level work?!?

 

[rounser]

Is it possible that their players also visit EN World, and thus they don't want to post actual encounters?

Yes, it's possible, but more likely it's too much like hard work. Ephemeral high level bollocks is much easier to come up with, admit it. I sure will.

 

[Raven Crowking]

An adventure hook with no adventure attached isn't an adventure hook. It's just a "promising" idea that may never see play

Isn't it equally true that a complete adventure is a promising idea that may never see play? (I assume here that the players have enough free will to choose what hooks they follow, and therefore what adventure sites they go to).

Didn't you, earlier, suggest that your own campaign work included laying lots of hooks? Do you completely write out every adventure before using these hooks?

In my campaigns, I write out an initial adventure location and then go top-up and begin to outline other possible adventure locations. I do not fully detail these until the PCs are either close enough to follow up on them, or until they show some sign of being interested in that hook.

I consider these to be adventure hooks, and part of both good worldbuilding and adventure design.

YMMV.

 

[Imaro]

Wow, took this many pages to bring in the comparison to video games Godwin. Nice.

Uhm...didn't rag on videogames, so not really seeing what the problem of using videogame rpg's in this discussion...but ok.

Look, I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I am not stating that setting is bad. That would be stupid. You need a setting, whether it be a massive dungeon, outdoor wilderness or steampunk city or whatever. That goes without saying.

However, the idea that adventure design is all important is by no means an archaic concept. You cannot play without an adventure of some sort, even if it's just a blank sheet of graph paper and a random encounter chart. At some point you would have to create that random encounter chart and thus, setting.

Never disagreed about needing an adventure, my disagreement is with the all or nothing idea that you and rounser seem to be pushing that...worldbuilding is a waste of time...so I'm not getting how this in anyway addresses worldbuilding being "a waste of time". I personally don't think either is a waste of time and both complement each other in the type of games I play.

Which is a far cry from D&D in it's beginning when there ws no "real setting" and it was a bunch of adventure released. Very little coherency, no real context...unless you got a series that ran in an arc. That was great when I first got into the game, but as you grow to want more than just encounter after encounter...settings appeared. This was an evolution of the game, for those who wanted more out of it, whether through a home-brew world or published campaign.

You can have all the setting books in the world but, without an adventure, what you have are some pretty books. Until such time as you sit down and do the nuts and bolts of designing an (or several) adventure (or adventures), nothing is going to happen at your gaming table. No matter how you slice it, adventure design is the primary purpose of the DM. He can write all the backstory to his campaign world that he likes, but, until that adventure gets made, nothing happens. All the players can do is ooh and ahh about how smart their DM is to create such interesting campaign worlds.

Not exactly my idea of a fun night.

Once again you seem to be under the impression that I think adventures are a waste of time...no, I've never posted anything on this thread to that effect. I have addressed the issue of worldbuilding as a waste.

Ok, you don't like videogames, well let's go to boardgames. What do you get out of your prescribed "way" of running a campaign without worldbuilding, that you don't get with a boardgame like Descent? It gives you encounters, ever changing adventures and is even cheaper overall than buying the D&D core.

You mention top selling video games. Do people play World of Warcraft to be wowed about the history of Azeroth or do they play to kill stuff and take the treasure? I'm thinking that if you removed the combat aspects from FF or WOW, you wouldn't have too many players. While Myst was fun for a while, it certainly never approached the levels of popularity that WOW has.

Switch and bait cool I was talking Final Fantasy VII, which as of Dec. 2005 sold 9.8 million units while as of 2007 WoW has 8million subscribers...FFVII is still beating it in popularity(and it's only one of a series of best selling games. The funny thing is it's MMORPG didn't do all that great, something like 500,000 subscribers. I would have to concur that part of this is people totally dissapointed that it doesn't give them a "FF experience"). The one player games are full of extraneous stuff...but you know what, people apparently loved it. Otherwise why are they buying it? My own oppinion is it gives them a feeling of being part of something bigger. Oh yeah and don't kid yourself WoW definitely has worldbuilding elements in it.

Again, once more.

Setting =/= World buiding.

All stories have setting but not all stories have world building, thus there must be something different about the two. IMO, the difference is how relavent the ideas are to the plot of the story. If it is relavent, then it is setting, if it's not, or at least not terribly, relavent, then it's world building.

So what is it if you as a DM make it relevant, even though it might not have been before? I still believe your argument is flawed in the assumption that a good DM can make any part of his world relevant to the adventures and the PC's

So, again, there is a spectrum. At one end you have numerous stories with little setting at all and at the other you have books which are all setting like the Star Trek Tech Manuals. World building is an indulgence. It is mostly unnecessary.

No disagreement here, because in my oppinion it's the balance of both that make a great game. YMMV of course.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Where is the cutoff between art and porn? There isn't one.

OK, let's say that you actually believe this (as opposed to merely having stated it repeatedly).

It then follows, if there is no cutoff, either that art is a form of porn, or porn a form of art, or both. They are part and parcel of the same thing, right?

Following that logic, it would then follow, if there is no cutoff, that either worldbuilding is a form of setting design, or setting design is a form of worldbuilding, or both. They are part and parcel of the same thing, right?

So either there is a cutoff point (and they are distinct) or there is no cutoff point (and they are not distinct). What you cannot have (rationally, anyway) is a situation where creating setting is not worldbuilding, but where there is no cutoff between worldbuilding and creating setting.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again, strawman. I did not say that they could NEVER discover it. What I said was that the chances of the nobility of Sasserine becoming involved with the party is extremely small. You are the one advocating that the players can interact with kings at first level.

I was merely pointing out the difference in your and Rounser's positions.

To Rounser, if it is part of the module, it is part of the adventure, and this is obvious (and should be obvious to all). To you, this is neither obvious nor true.

 

[Hussar]

Where are all these story hours coming from if no one does encounter-level work?!?

Of course people are doing encounter level work. You have to in order to have an adventure. That's a given. However, what's also fairly apparent is that there is an awful lot of macro level stuff being lobbed around as if it really mattered.

I stand astounded by Fargoth. I really do stand back and gape in awe at the amount of work that has gone into that site. There's just unbelievable amounts of stuff there. Yet, for all the massive amount of material there, how much actual adventure creation has been done? People have written thousands of words detailing numerous countries and lands, yet, I cannot find a single adventure set in those lands. Look at their Forums. Numerous forums dedicated to all sorts of elements found in the setting. Yet not a single forum dedicated to creating adventures.

 

[Raven Crowking]

None of the rest of 'em feel inclined at all to spend hours discussing the game here.

I wouldn't rule it out, but this hippo don't jump through flaming hoops. I'm not going to DM for anyone to prove something.

That's what I thought.

I'm not an authority on my own games?

Sure. What you are not (and cannot be) is an authority on how your games measure up in comparison to the average game, or the games of anyone you haven't played with. It's all well and fine to say "I can make as rich and detailed a world off the top of my head as you can with prep work" but you don't know how rich and detailed a world the other guy's is, and therefore it means nothing.

As a result, I'll go with my experience over your say-so, just as you'll presumably go with your experience over mine.

 

[Hussar]

So what is it if you as a DM make it relevant, even though it might not have been before? I still believe your argument is flawed in the assumption that a good DM can make any part of his world relevant to the adventures and the PC's

In other words, taking a minor element, such as Dragotha and spinning it into an entire adventure? That's fine, so long as the adventure is about Dragotha. However, detailing Dragotha in White Plume Mountain would make zero sense since WPM isn't about Dragotha.

See the problem I have is this idea that the DM can make any element relavent. There's a very, very short step between making any element relavent and ramming his six page elven tea ceremonies down my throat.

Or, to put it another way, how exactly would you make the Five Shires relavent to the Isle of Dread within the context of that adventure? After all, the Five Shires is (briefly) detailed in the module. So, a good DM should be able to make it relavent.