Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Darth Shoju]

I agree 100%.

But, I'm also being told that in order to have a campaign with depth, I need to do a complete gazateer, even for the 95% of stuff that I'm not going to use.

Well IMO, to have a campaign that is *fun* you only need what the players and DM are interested in. That could be almost no setting required. It could be a 200-page gazeteer. Even if you as the DM don't use 95% of the book, what about your players? What if they each use bits and pieces of it in making their characters? Even if they don't use that information in play, if they enjoyed using that info and writing a bit of background about their character, isn't it worth it? Naturally the answer to that will require you to ask "how much did I pay for the setting book or how much time did I spend writing it compared to how much of it got used?".

Really, as far as I can see, it is dependent on communication between the DM and the players beforehand. They need to have a consensus on what type of game they are looking for; if the players want tons of setting detail but the DM doesn't want to provide it, someone needs to compromise or there will be a problem. If the players want to stick to straight-forward adventuring, then I hope the DM enjoys designing adventures. If he prefers worldbuilding more and decides to do some after the adventure is made (assuming his presentation of said information doesn't get in the way of the adventure and thus his players' enjoyment), then I'd say no one has wasted any effort, regardless of how much worldbuilding the DM did.

But this seems to be where we disagree: if I understand your position correctly, that worldbuilding the DM did was a useless waste of time and incorporating it into the game did nothing but feed his ego. In *my* opinion, doing so was necessary for that particular DM's enjoyment and allowed the game/adventure to happen (assuming the DM wouldn't run a game he had no enjoyment in). If everyone got what they wanted, then I have a hard time understanding how any effort was wasted and how the DM would be a loutish egotist.

The question is, what prep is needed?

As much as required to have fun.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I would point out that the wiki definition would not agree with what you just wrote. There is a lot to world building beyond simply creating a consistent setting. You need to create a history, flora, fauna, maps, etc to be world building.

I'm operating off of the definitions found on dictionary.com:

Setting:

set·ting
–noun

5. the locale or period in which the action of a novel, play, film, etc., takes place: The setting of this story is Verona in the 15th century.

World Building:

"Worldbuilding is a technique widely used by authors to create diverse and believable constructed worlds in which to base their stories, the process usually involves the creation of maps, listing the backstory of the world and the people of the world, amongst other features."

I don't think that definition is contrary to what I said; setting is still where the story is set and world building is still fleshing out that setting to bring added detail and ensure consistency. While I'd agree it often *involves* the creating of histories and maps and such, the point of worldbuilding is to do what is necessary to bring that level of detail and consistency.

From the same article I quoted:

"Worldbuilding - though primarily the tool of fantasy and science fiction authors - is also a helpful tool to authors of any genre. Worldbuilding allows the creator to add a depth of realism that they might not have been able to achieve otherwise, having a guide to the created world that can be easily referred to will help to avoid simple mistakes in the lore of the world."

To me, the point is to bring detail and consistency to the setting. Thus, as far as I am concerned, establishing the setting is the first step in worldbuilding. How far you go after that is up to you; but I would agree that you shouldn't let it get in the way of writing the story (or adventure in the context of D&D).

So really, I'd say that setting is a part of worldbuilding, just like porn is a form of art.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I'd rather simply call the 5% that I do use setting, and everything else is world building.

See I see the whole book as setting, or at least *potential* setting. The 95% you didn't use just wasn't relevant to the adventure you were doing at the time. If you play for years, doing many adventures and using that setting book to inform all of them, you could very well get to 95% used and 5% unused. In that case the potential of the campaign book paid off. To my mind, that meant the book was useful from the beginning. The fact that you used it so much made it *worth* the purchase. Perhaps it is a comparison between utility and worth then?

 

[Ourph]

I would point out that the wiki definition would not agree with what you just wrote. There is a lot to world building beyond simply creating a consistent setting. You need to create a history, flora, fauna, maps, etc to be world building.

Synechdoche again. All of those things are worldbuilding, but you don't need to be doing each and every one of them in order to be worldbuilding, just one suffices. If you are creating setting, you are worldbuilding.

 

[rounser]

If you are creating setting, you are worldbuilding.

"A bit of pepper enhances the meal, so a whole meal of pepper is better" are not equivalent. The main course may suck, but hey, look at my lovely condiments.

 

[Baron Opal]

I'd rather simply call the 5% that I do use setting, and everything else is world building. ... The question is, what prep is needed?

Ah. For me, "world building" it the process of developing the "setting". To me there is also a difference between setting and trivia.

Needed...? Enough so that the players are able to role-play acquiring resources and overcoming obsticles to their comfort level.

Desired...? Enough that the players encounter a realistic world that conforms to their expectations. And, where those expectations are violated, there is sufficient background information to explain it. Even to the point of "why yes, it is wierd that our city is built on a large continental slab of floating stone. But as long as we don't fall into that storm below, we don't worry about it too much."

Too much...? when the referee is continually interrupting the player's exploits to correct their perception of the world.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, I'm also being told that in order to have a campaign with depth, I need to do a complete gazateer, even for the 95% of stuff that I'm not going to use.

Link, please.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Anyone who makes any claim that follows rationally from my experience and expectations ("There's a bird on the porch") gets a free pass. This doesn't mean that what they say is true; merely that it isn't likely enough to be false (unless there is good reason to believe otherwise) to argue about or worry about. I will simply assume that it is true unless I have reason not to.

Anyone who makes any claim that does not follow rationally from my experience and expectations ("There is a lion on the porch", "I have a real photo of Bigfoot", "I can create as much depth, consistency, and detail on the fly as you can spending hours to perform prep work", "My rough draft doesn't need edittiing and revision") doesn't get a free pass. This doesn't mean that what they say is false; merely that it isn't likely enough to be true (unless there is good reason to believe otherwise) to argue or worry about.

Anthropologists call it the ethnocentric fallacy, but "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" works well enough. You can't prove a negative, right? So why insist that something is *not* the case when someone claims it is? Why say that I am more likely to be an untrustworthy source than to simply accept my experience as accurate?

Guy 1: "My kid is named Tom."
Guy 2: "No he isn't. I've called him Jujubee and he's been responding."
Guy 1: "Well, that's nice, but his name is Tom."
Guy 2: "Prove it!"
Guy 1: "....Tom, come away from the strange man..."
Kid: "I AM JUJUBEE!"
Guy 2: "See! That's his name!"
Guy 1: "I think I know what I wrote on the birth certificate..."
Guy 2: "Oh, do you? Everyone I know calls this kid Jujubee, I think you might be mistaken."
Guy 1: "But his name is Tom."
Guy 2: "I don't believe it. That makes no sense. No one calls this kid Tom. Prove it!"
Guy 1: "I'm his *father.*"
Guy 2: "So? Your experience is so counter to my own that I really can't believe your perspective is accurate at all. Maybe you're just not a very good father because you don't know what your kid is named."
Guy 1: "Look, I believe he's been responding to Jujubee, but that's not his name."
Guy 2: "I don't believe you. My experiences suggest otherwise."

Here's another way to look at it: How consistent has your position been in this thread?

My position on what happens in my campaign? I've always claimed that good improv lacks nothing that extensive pre-prep gives you.

My position on how useful worldbuilding is? I claimed in the OP that you don't need to spend hours building it, and that Harrison's post reinforced this position. I still claim that. I also claim that if you want to spend hours on worldbuilding, you can go have fun at it, but, with regards to my above position that good improv lacks nothing that extensive pre-prep gives you, that it's unnecessary and doesn't provide any inherent advantages. DMs may be more comfortable in one or the other, but both can add together to produce 4.

Now, the positions that have been attributed to me range far and wide, but my actual position has been fairly consistent, once one was established, and certainly adheres to internal logic.

 

[Imaro]

My position on how useful worldbuilding is? I claimed in the OP that you don't need to spend hours building it, and that Harrison's post reinforced this position. I still claim that. I also claim that if you want to spend hours on worldbuilding, you can go have fun at it, but, with regards to my above position that good improv lacks nothing that extensive pre-prep gives you, that it's unnecessary and doesn't provide any inherent advantages. DMs may be more comfortable in one or the other, but both can add together to produce 4.

You know KM I have to say, I don't agrre here, and after thinking about it for a while...here's why. Improv isn't something anyone can do, that's why some people do better on timed tests than others, even though their knowledge and skill level are the same. Another example is timed chess vs. un-timmed chess, I've played both and could argue they're very different games beyond the rules.

Another thing is ramifications, I feel that steadily improv'ing is akin to lying(not in a negative way) in the essence that it's too easy to "weave a tangled web" that when looked at closely makes no sense or has various inconsistencies(unless you have a memory like a super computer),. Oh yeah, and if you're writing it down then aren't you just doing twice as much, or at least an equal amount of work when compared to writing it out beforehand?

You used personal experience before, and I'm going to do it now. My firend B' Lovin does improv comedy at Second City in chicago, and we've talked about it before...In his oppinion it is way more demanding than doing scripted comedy. The question I pose is for a DM whose having fun what advantage does a more demanding playstyle have over one that's less? In other words...if my purpose is to make you laugh then what is the "advantage" to more stress, uncertainty, and workload? It's great that YOU enjoy this style and have the skill set to make it work, and I highly respect my friend for having those skills as well, but just like they're are some people who lack dexterity, or just aren't funny...they're are people who aren't good at improv and no amount of practice will change that.

Now the advantage I see to writing it out is it creates a win/win situation. If you're great at improv then use it as a sketchy guideline at best and do your improv thing (btw even "improv" shows have guidelines and structure), if your not good at it you can fall back on your notes. I think that, especially for a beginning DM, writing it is more generally applicable than your "wing everything" advice. Thus it has an advantage.

 

[BryonD]

My position on what happens in my campaign? I've always claimed that good improv lacks nothing that extensive pre-prep gives you.

I agree with this statement. But you seem to be extending it to a further idea that I don't agree with. That would be that there is no advantage to world building in and of itself.

It is true that good improv alone is all it takes for a great game.
But it is not true that improv and prep do not offer synergy.
Further, a given DM's improv ability at a given session is fixed. They may get better over time, but at the table their skill just is what it is. Background prep adds some non-zero value. The magnitude will depend on how good the DM is at building solid stuff that fits the on-going plot. But there is some addition that will add on top of the improv ability of that DM, be it awesome or terrible.