Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Matt Black]

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),.

I totally agree with this. It may be possible for an improv game to be just as good as a well-prepared game, but they're different types of game. I had this one great improv GM. He was amazing, really. And he knew he was great. He relished the opportunity to run incredibly descriptive, evocative sessions for his awe-struck audience. However in the end, we players realised that we were just that - an audience. The lack of preparation meant that there was no illusion that the world existed beyond whatever the GM was making up on the spot. We weren't interacting with a world, just with the GM. These campaigns lacked the substance of those whose worlds exist beyond the immediate whim of the GM.

Ironically, I feel far more straightjacketed in improv games. I feel compelled to take whatever hooks the GM throws at me because there isn't an established wider world for me to explore. It makes me care a lot less about my characters because they aren't really a part of anything bigger.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I'll be happy to explain.

It's a skill, and like any skill, it gets better with practice. Anyone who can think sitting down can think on their feet, it's just a matter of getting used to it enough to be comfortable with it. There are improv classes available in any city with an acting population, and a lot of the rules for stage apply to gaming on the fly, too.

Some people do better on timed tests than others, but those who don't do well can always improve their performance.

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),.

Maybe you're just not a very good liar. It's really easy to have a few basic archetypes and hang weave a web around those. You create information as needed, just making sure it doesn't contradict what has come before. So as the PC's examine (say) the elven tea ceremonies, elven tea ceremonies become deeper and more significant, but very little time is spent on the Necromancer King.

A good liar, much like a good writer, knows when to be vague and let someone else fill in the details and figure out the inconsistencies.

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?

Not really, since you're just taking notes on the experience. That's quite a bit less work than the Sisyphean quest of trying to extensively detail every direction the PC's can go, I think.

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.

I wouldn't advise people to accept the total improv campaign whole-heartedly, any more than most people would advise a new DM to write a 256 page World Setting bible before they begin. Most campaigns are going to have a nice middle ground between the two, and most DMs will balance whatever improv ability they have or acquire with whatever writing ability they have or acquire.

But I do think that the idea that a deeper and richer and "better" campaign setting requires more writing and pre-preparation is a notion that must be disabused. More preparation doesn't necessarily make your world deeper and richer than mine. It has no inherent advantages. Improv doesn't have any inherent advantages, either. They are different ways of getting to 4. A 256 setting bible might be 4 + 0, total improv might be 0 + 4, most campaigns might be closer to 3 + 1 or 2 + 2, or 888 + -884, or whatever. It is much more important to show DMs how to use the abilities and interests they have, rather than to tell them they'll need to do hours of extra-game work for the slightest in-game payoff when it really isn't true. They only need to do the extra-game work they enjoy.

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.

Background prep can add a lot of zero value, actually. 256 pages of 0 value.

HOWEVER, my own way of doing things is just as extreme as a 256 page setting bible way of doing things, so most DMs will find a comfortable middle ground for them. Some total that adds up to 4.

There is no inherent advantage to worldbuilding. But some DMs like it and use it just fine. There is no inherent advantage to improv. But some DMs like it and use it just fine. And each method creates fairly equivalent campaigns, so like in my original post, you *don't* need to spend countless hours crafting your campaign setting. There is, in fact, no inherent virtue in doing so.

However in the end, we players realised that we were just that - an audience. The lack of preparation meant that there was no illusion that the world existed beyond whatever the GM was making up on the spot. We weren't interacting with a world, just with the GM. These campaigns lacked the substance of those whose worlds exist beyond the immediate whim of the GM.

You describe the definite different feel of heavy-improv DMs, but that he lacked the substance just shows he didn't do it that well.

I've got as much setting material after my 8 hour D&D game as you have sitting in front of a computer writing for 8 hours, I just got it in a different way.

Ironically, I feel far more straightjacketed in improv games. I feel compelled to take whatever hooks the GM throws at me because there isn't an established wider world for me to explore. It makes me care a lot less about my characters because they aren't really a part of anything bigger.

A good DM builds confidence and trust and a living, breathing world. If you feel straightjacketed, it could be because the DM doesn't earn that from you. Regardless of the method used to come up with the hooks, this is true. If a particular DM fails to build that, you first have to look at them and see what they missed, and then look at yourself and see what demands you have.

My players invent their own hooks to explore, and go off into corners of the world that I then develop in response to their actions. My players delight in the feeling of being able to revolutionize an entire setting based on their actions, that the world moves in response to them, interested in what they're doing, who they are. The context for them is largely relevant to them.

It's a different feel, and it's not for everyone, but it still adds up to 4.

 

[Matt Black]

It's a skill, and like any skill, it gets better with practice. Anyone who can think sitting down can think on their feet, it's just a matter of getting used to it enough to be comfortable with it. There are improv classes available in any city with an acting population, and a lot of the rules for stage apply to gaming on the fly, too.

Some people do better on timed tests than others, but those who don't do well can always improve their performance.

Only to some extent. Improv is one of those skills in which natural talent plays a very big part. The work that some GMs (I suspect most, including myself) would have to put into improv training to be able to run games without preparation would greatly exceed the prep work that it would replace.

It sounds like you are an unusual class of GM, if you can maintain consistency and create the illusion of breadth without any preparation. That's a great skill, but it's hardly a typical skill. Harrison's advice is not valid for most GMs. I don't think it's even valid for most authors - only the ones who write his way.

In the discussion following his post he states that a Bob Dylan song made "triple-decker fantasy worlds obsolete". His example is a SONG, not a piece of prose. It really highlights the difference between his approach to writing and that of a 'worldbuilder'. As a writer, Harrison sees himself as a lyricist and poet. He seems more interested in the instantaneous emotion and imagery conjured by his words than in any lasting sense of immersion. Sure, the immediate power of a turn of phrase is what good writing is about. But it's not all there is to being a good writer. A good writer can't rely on good writing alone. You need to do research, to have a feel for your setting, and to know things that your readers don't.

The same applies to most GMs. Unless you have freakish improv skills and a perfect memory (natural or hard-won), a game will always benefit from background work.

 

[Celebrim]

In the discussion following his post he states that a Bob Dylan song made "triple-decker fantasy worlds obsolete". His example is a SONG, not a piece of prose. It really highlights the difference between his approach to writing and that of a 'worldbuilder'. As a writer, Harrison sees himself as a lyricist and poet. He seems more interested in the instantaneous emotion and imagery conjured by his words than in any lasting sense of immersion. Sure, the immediate power of a turn of phrase is what good writing is about. But it's not all there is to being a good writer. A good writer can't rely on good writing alone. You need to do research, to have a feel for your setting, and to know things that your readers don't.

I have no desire to get dragged back into beating the dead horse, but this seems like the first really fresh comment in this thread in a very long while and its important enough I feel compelled to highlight it and comment on it.

Yes, different writers have very different strengths, and yet they can still be fantastic writers.

To take a few examples, a writer like Gene Wolfe is the sort I refer to as a 'wordsmith'. His prose is beautiful, rich with meaning, and a pleasure to read even as isolated sentences. But his story telling leaves quite a bit to be desired. Its not that he can't tell a story, its just that his strengths profoundly lean in one direction. Other writers in this group include people like Edgar Allen Poe and Kurt Vonnegut. At the opposite extreme you have writers like JK Rawlings, Roger Zelazny, and Lois McMaster Bujold, whose story telling ability shines in comparison to thier writing ability. Only a few authors are actually good at both, and if they are even moderately good at both they tend to get very famous.

Other writers rely heavily on thier imagination, originality, thoughtfulness, or creativity to sell thier works, and the settings that they create outshine thier gifts as either storyteller or wordsmith. In this group I'd put writers like Peter Hamilton, China Mieville, and even Robert Heinlien. Now, that's not to say that those writers are necessarily sub-par story tellers or wordsmiths, its just that they are better at one thing than another.

Another contrast for me would be a writer like Agatha Christy, a mystery writer known for her cunningly devised plot twists but who generally doesn't explore anything in the setting beyond what is necessary for the mystery, and a writer like Laurie R. King, who is terrible at plot twists but instead treats the setting almost as a plot to itself (read for example 'The Moor') and lavishes detail and intricacy not on the mystery but on the place where the mystery occurs and the people involved in it. Two writers in the same supposedly narrow genera, but they have totally different styles.

 

[Baron Opal]

There is no inherent advantage to worldbuilding. But some DMs like it and use it just fine. There is no inherent advantage to improv. But some DMs like it and use it just fine. And each method creates fairly equivalent campaigns, so like in my original post, you *don't* need to spend countless hours crafting your campaign setting. There is, in fact, no inherent virtue in doing so.

I don't think that you need to spend countless hours, but some worldbuilding give you needed consistency (+1) and some improv gives you needed flexibility (+1). There must be some of both unless you are comfortable with a beer & pretzels game or a railroad. How you spend your other +2 to get to 4 is dependant on motivation and talent.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I'll be happy to explain.

It's a skill, and like any skill, it gets better with practice. Anyone who can think sitting down can think on their feet, it's just a matter of getting used to it enough to be comfortable with it. There are improv classes available in any city with an acting population, and a lot of the rules for stage apply to gaming on the fly, too.

I agree. But I'd say that worldbuilding is a skill that gets better with practice too.

But I do think that the idea that a deeper and richer and "better" campaign setting requires more writing and pre-preparation is a notion that must be disabused. More preparation doesn't necessarily make your world deeper and richer than mine. It has no inherent advantages.

I don't necessarily agree here. It seems impossible to me that a totally improved campaign is as deep *up-front* as a pre-prepped game. In an improv game, the campaign doesn't really exist without the DM there. When I sit down to make my character before the first session in an improv campaign, I don't have anything to use to develop the character beyond the default D&D setting info. Certainly I can make things up myself, but if I'm doing that then the setting doesn't seem that deep at that point. Once things get going and the improv DM starts crafting the setting as the group plays, *then* the depth is beginning to add up. But before that you're starting at say "5" (or zero if you don't think the default D&D world has any particular value), whereas someone with pre-prep is starting at "6+" (or 1+).

Background prep can add a lot of zero value, actually. 256 pages of 0 value.

LOL true, but improv can bring a lot of zero development too. Either style done poorly is going to bring nothing.

you *don't* need to spend countless hours crafting your campaign setting. There is, in fact, no inherent virtue in doing so.

No you don't need to spend hours crafting the setting beforehand. No there isn't inherent *virtue* in doing so. There can be *value* in doing so however.

My players invent their own hooks to explore, and go off into corners of the world that I then develop in response to their actions.

How do they go into areas that don't exist yet? Wouldn't you have to do some prep before hand for them to know what places exist in the world to go visit?

My players delight in the feeling of being able to revolutionize an entire setting based on their actions, that the world moves in response to them, interested in what they're doing, who they are. The context for them is largely relevant to them.

And that is a wonderful thing.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, different writers have very different strengths, and yet they can still be fantastic writers.

To take a few examples, a writer like Gene Wolfe is the sort I refer to as a 'wordsmith'. His prose is beautiful, rich with meaning, and a pleasure to read even as isolated sentences. But his story telling leaves quite a bit to be desired. Its not that he can't tell a story, its just that his strengths profoundly lean in one direction.

Totally. Wolfe is a pleasure to read, even if his stories meander weirdly. However I'd class Wolfe as a worldbuilder as much as a wordsmith. One of things I love about Wolfe is his ability to drop in subtle references to a large, intricate world and an ancient history. You know that this depth is driving the story, even if you only catch tantalizing glimpses of it. He's come up with some of the coolest invented words and names in fantasy literature, and he didn't pull them out of his a... They flow from a world that exists beyond the current story.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Anthropologists call it the ethnocentric fallacy, but "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" works well enough.

Nah. Nothing ethnocentric about it, and I am willing to accept evidence if you can provide any. Nor is it fallicious reasoning because I am not claiming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, I am claiming that I am skeptical about your claim.

Which seems to bother you quite a bit. I wonder why that is? As I said before, my skepticism has no bearing on the validity of your claim one way of the other.


RC

 

[rounser]

I don't think that you need to spend countless hours, but some worldbuilding give you needed consistency (+1)

You don't need worldbuilding for consistency, that's a baseless assumption about the "bottom up" approach. You do need worldbuilding if you intend to straitjacket your adventures into an artificial and arbitrary mold, with the adventures as an afterthought which have to somehow fit in with what has needlessly gone before, however.

There must be some of both unless you are comfortable with a beer & pretzels game or a railroad.

IMO that's a fallacy. Worldbuilding doesn't provide a "serious" game, nor prevent railroad. That stuff is all contained in the nature of (drum roll) the adventures and the campaign arc, so spend time on that instead of the world already.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think that you need to spend countless hours, but some worldbuilding give you needed consistency (+1) and some improv gives you needed flexibility (+1). There must be some of both unless you are comfortable with a beer & pretzels game or a railroad. How you spend your other +2 to get to 4 is dependant on motivation and talent.

Absolutely.

The other thing that I would note is that, in the Improv game the challenges that the PCs face are adjusted on the fly to meet the level of difficulty that the DM deems appropriate. This prevents players from sussing out a situation and choosing, based on reliable, trustworthy data, the easiest way to accomplish a task.

The minute I realized that a game was "on the fly" I would cease to be interested in it, personally. There is nothing to explore, nothing to discover, and none of the choices I make matter because the "board" changes.

RC