Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[gizmo33]

I'm afraid that by now, I've lost the point of the thread. Is the "pro-worldbuilding" side trying to argue that worldbuilding is not always bad (I think most of us agree on that), that worldbuilding is always good (I think most of us require a lot more convincing), or that what you call "worldbuilding", Hussar calls "setting" (why should it bother you what he calls it as long as both of you agree it's a good thing)?

I don't find what Hussar is saying to be as easy to decipher as you seem to. He says stuff like "World building is when you go beyond the needs of the plot." which is not just a matter of the "world-building vs. setting" terminology. There, at times, seems to be some deeper beliefs at work here, and the impression I get from RC (and which I share) is that conceding some point that would superficially appear to be about terminology is actually agreeing to something more fundemental about the role of the DM and players in the game.

Since the creation of the OGL, I really don't think there's a strong case that there's a lack of 3rd party adventures. I also disagree that creating 600 page setting bibles is indulgent, or somehow doesn't support the game by definition. I'm in a position to say what is or is not useful for my game, but I'd be much more careful about condemning what other people find useful, especially in such blanket terms.

In one sentence the economics information in the DMG is (apparently) condemned, with no specifics given. The "specifics" given are actually some made up example about window architecture. Again, this largely IMO can be looked at as an issue of logic rather than terminology.

So AFAICT you haven't really gotten the gist of the arguments on this post, but then I think it's going on 1000 posts so I guess that's to be expected.

 

[rounser]

You're not in a position to label any element as extraneous for someone else's campaign with such confidence and prejudice.

I suppose no-one's in a position of "such confidence and prejudice" to label any campaign as a pile of crap, either?

Two "worldbuilding" examples Hussar used previously were a hill and a city.

Do you have a quote?

 

[gizmo33]

I suppose no-one's in a position of "such confidence and prejudice" to label any campaign as a pile of crap, either?

No, "pile of" anything is antagonistic and not very informative.

Do you have a quote?

That's not my quote, so I'll leave it to whoever wrote it to explain.

 

[rounser]

No, "pile of" anything is antagonistic and not very informative.

Alright, to be more specific - saying "it's all relative, it's all subjective, no-one can judge anything anyone does or the way anyone does things" isn't a robust philosophical or social stance to take. It doesn't hold water.

 

[JustinA]

Wow, just, wow. That someone would actually conceive of someone else going through the trouble to edit the wiki when that person has already quoted the entire wiki entry is just ... wow. Dude, a little less caffeine might be helpful.

It makes about as much sense as claiming that a source says something when it doesn't actually say it.

... which is what you've just admitted that you did.

Umm, how many people do I have to quote?

If you could quote even one person saying that, than that would be one more person than you've actually quoted saying that.

For me, if that organization/place over the hill/person is necessary for the adventure, then it's not world building.

Which gets us back to your definitions which require precognizance:

Setting: Details of the world used in the session.

Worldbuilding: Details of the world not used in the session.

Since there is absolutely no way to predict exactly what information is going to be used in the session, there's no way to tell when you're "creating setting" or "world building" until after the fact. This is a ridiculous and useless definition, yet you insist on using it.

Your distinction might have some sort of relevance in a novel or a short story, but even there it's difficult to determine what will or won't be relevant to the final version of the novel or story. Lots of authors leave plenty of material on the cutting room floor.

But for a game session your definitions are utterly useless.

I fully support the idea that you need setting. That's completely necessary. Setting adds all sorts of things to the game. Tone, feel, tactics, inspirition. What I'm arguing against is what I'm calling world building - not simply placing that hill just there, but explaining how glaciation caused that particular feature 40 thousand years ago. Putting a tree here isn't world building. Detailing how that particular breed of tree is actually somewhat out of place and was planted there as an experiment by a druid 100 years ago is world building.

I notice your examples keep getting more absurd, perhaps in the hope that no one will be able to come up with a hypothetical scenario where that information would be useful in a game session.

But the pattern of terrain features has been important in running many chase sequences in my campaigns. And it's absolutely trivial to come up with scenarios where having that particular breed of tree (as opposed to another) would become important.

Even running a hardcore Scarred Lands game will only use a small fraction of the books for SL.

And if there was only a single person buying Scarred Lands supplements that might actually be relevant.

In reality, of course, this is not the case.

However, having seen character background after character background lie mouldering in the back of people's character binders, I would say that the idea that you must have background is highly overrated.

The fact that you have crappy players is totally irrelevant to this discussion. But it does help to explain where you're coming from.

 

[FireLance]

I don't find what Hussar is saying to be as easy to decipher as you seem to. He says stuff like "World building is when you go beyond the needs of the plot." which is not just a matter of the "world-building vs. setting" terminology. There, at times, seems to be some deeper beliefs at work here, and the impression I get from RC (and which I share) is that conceding some point that would superficially appear to be about terminology is actually agreeing to something more fundemental about the role of the DM and players in the game.

So what are the deeper beliefs at work that you are worried about agreeing to? Frankly, I don't see anything controversial about the proposition that a DM should spend more time detailing the elements that are more likely to get used in his game, which to me is essentially what Hussar is advocating with his "adventures first" approach.

Since the creation of the OGL, I really don't think there's a strong case that there's a lack of 3rd party adventures. I also disagree that creating 600 page setting bibles is indulgent, or somehow doesn't support the game by definition. I'm in a position to say what is or is not useful for my game, but I'd be much more careful about condemning what other people find useful, especially in such blanket terms.

Now, a 600-page setting bible in itself is not necessarily inconsistent with an "adventures first" approach. The issue is how the DM arrived at the 600-page setting bible, and what he sacrificed in order to get it. Did the DM simply buy up every campaign sourcebook for the setting? If so, then he has acquired the information with relatively little effort, and (presumably) he can focus his attention on crafting adventures set in that world. For the same reason, creating a detailed world as a commercial product is not wasted effort, as it makes the information on the world available for purchase, thus allowing DMs to spend more time on creating adventures instead of worldbuilding.

Similarly, if the setting bible was the result of years of crafting adventures, every element in the bible would have been there because it was featured in an adventure in the first place. The net result is still worldbuilding, but the adventures came first.

Where worldbuilding can become a problem is when the effort spent on building the world comes at the expense of adventure preparation. In the extreme case, a DM might have to fall back on his improvisation skills, but using them to come up with adventures on the fly instead of setting on the fly.

Of course, that is an extreme example, and it could also be argued that the distinction between worldbuilding and adventure preparation is so fine, especially at the "elements that a DM is likely to use in an adventure" side of the worldbuilding continuum, that it might not even exist. And if that is the case, what are we arguing about again?

 

[Darth Shoju]

...what are we arguing about again?

By the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth I wish I knew.

:\

 

[Hussar]

Guys, guys, guys (and possibly gals ) you're missing a big, big point here.

Throughout this little exercise, I've been told that my definition of world building is completely off base. That no one in their right mind would possibly define world building the way I do. I've defended my point of view for 25 pages now, despite various accusations of intellectual dishonesty, mental impairment and other goodies.

Imagine, just for a moment, my incredible contentment when opening the DMG last night and reading the definitions contained therein on world buiding. The DMG defines world building in precisely the same way that I do. It fits so closely that one could probably accuse me of plagiarism.

The DMG splits world building off from adventure design in exactly, precisely the same place I do - relavence. Everything you need to craft an adventure is included under Chapter 4 - Adventures. Everything that relates to a setting that is only tangentially linked to an adventure is contained under....

Wait for it...

Chapter 6 World Building.

Even the writers of the DMG define world building in the way I do. If elements are required by an adventure (the RPG equivalent of plot), it's not under world building. If elements are superfluous to adventure design, they are listed under world building.

It's nice being right.

My point is that you can cut out Chapter 6 entirely from the DMG and replace it with Wolgang Baur's Adventure Builder articles.

But, in any case, to those who've been saying that I'm off my rocker and have no idea what world building means, I'll be over here having a smoke, because baby, I'm spent.

 

[Hussar]

Setting: Details of the world used in the adventure.

Worldbuilding: Details of the world not used in the adventure.

FIFY. Do actually try arguing with my points instead of creating your own.

 

[JustinA]

FIFY. Do actually try arguing with my points instead of creating your own.

Oh, great. Another meaningless bit of semantic nonsense proffered in a desperate attempt to salvage an untenable position.

Out of morbid curiosity: What meaningful distinction are you drawing between "used in the session" and "used in the adventure"?

(Meaningful in the context of this discussion, you understand.)