Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not quite sure how the two could possibly related.

Well, right off the top of my head there's the OGL, which means that there are a lot of cool settings available right now. I know that in the 2e days, TSR made a lot of settings, but this edition actually seems easier to translate settings into IMHO.

That ease of translation is another thing that makes me wonder if regularly changing settings is is an artifact of this edition. While the default assumptions are more strongly wired into the rules, the amount of material available for changing them is staggering.

RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

I wonder how much of that point is an artifact of the current edition.

I wonder how much of that point is a direct function of the fact that life changes yield changes in D&D campaigns. I'm of the opinion that D&D groups are largely formed out of groups of friends with similar interests, and things that disrupt that group of friends (such as getting a new job, or someone moving away, or a shift in leisure activities) disrupt the game, changing the face of it (new DMs, new players, new places to play, new other distractions...).

If a DM moves to a different city, the players left in the old one won't be playing in that DM's setting anymore, and the DM, when she makes a group in her new city, won't be using the same campaigns her friends back home participated in.

I trust the Wizard's information that most campaigns don't last more than a year or two (IIRC), and, thus, the game is very much better for enabling easy modification and changing of campaigns (which includes things like fast XP gain) because it actually melds with how real people actually play in the majority -- it listens to the players.

This reinforces the idea that a setting that is over-developed with world-building detail has that detail for no constructive in-game purpose, and is merely useful as a safety net and entertainment for certain kinds of DMs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

the DM, when she makes a group in her new city, won't be using the same campaigns her friends back home participated in.

I can tell you as a fact that this isn't necessarily so.

I trust the Wizard's information that most campaigns don't last more than a year or two (IIRC)

I trust that the Wizard's information is true for their target demographic (those that they sent the follow-up questionaires to). But, it shouldn't surprise us that those who tend to change campaign settings regularly also tend to buy more stuff (and hence fall into the target demographic).

RC

 

[Moon-Lancer]

our group plays from level 1 to 12 or 13. since 3.5 we haven't played many different games.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I can tell you as a fact that this isn't necessarily so.

Nor did I say it was necessarily so. Though I didn't specifically call it out as a mere likelihood, I didn't think it was necessary to do so, as if you are not with your group anymore, you can hardly game with them on any regular basis anymore.

Lives change, and this changes games. My point about campaigns not lasting more than a few years remains valid, though I may have neglected to properly qualify my example to account for the end of the bell curve that manages to flit around the nation for regular D&D sessions with old friends.

I trust that the Wizard's information is true for their target demographic (those that they sent the follow-up questionaires to). But, it shouldn't surprise us that those who tend to change campaign settings regularly also tend to buy more stuff (and hence fall into the target demographic).

I believe that experience in a long-term campaign (5+ years in the same campaign setting) is atypical, based on WotC's previously announced market research. If you'd like to provide more than anecdotal contradictory evidence, my ears are open. If you wouldn't like to do that, I'm affraid saying that, effectively, "Wizards hears what the want to hear!" doesn't make a counterpoint.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I believe that experience in a long-term campaign (5+ years in the same campaign setting) is atypical, based on WotC's previously announced market research. If you'd like to provide more than anecdotal contradictory evidence, my ears are open. If you wouldn't like to do that, I'm affraid saying that, effectively, "Wizards hears what the want to hear!" doesn't make a counterpoint.

If you examine what is available from WotC's marketing research, it is quite clear that an initial survey was done to determine their target demographic, followed by an in-depth questionarie to members of that demographic.

It is also quite clear that WotC's target demographic is the people most likely to spend the most on WotC products. Grognards do not (and should not) fall within that demographic. OTOH, it shouldn't surprise one that the people who spend the most on new game products (the target demographic) might also change campaign settings (requiring spending) more frequently. The relationship between spending more on campaign setting materials and spending more overall is fairly self-evident.

 

[Hussar]

I dunno RC. When people post here that they've had multi year campaigns in a single setting, they seem to be very much in a minority. Most of us change settings fairly often. And, let's not forget, many groups include more than one DM. When that happens, it may be even more likely that different campaigns are set in different settings so that one DM doesn't tread on the other's toes.

In any case, I don't think it's too far out there to say that most people don't run 4+ year campaigns and, even if they do, continue to run subsequent campaigns in the same setting. Polling here shows that most campaigns have a half life of about 12-18 months. Well, let's see how setting faithful people are on Enworld shall we?

Take the poll

 

[Raven Crowking]

I dunno RC. When people post here that they've had multi year campaigns in a single setting, they seem to be very much in a minority. Most of us change settings fairly often. And, let's not forget, many groups include more than one DM. When that happens, it may be even more likely that different campaigns are set in different settings so that one DM doesn't tread on the other's toes.

Sure. But don't forget also that many of us here (I wouldn't hesitate to say most) have also bought into the 3.X paradigm to a large degree. It has been pointed out, repeatedly (and I think correctly) that EN World isn't necessarily a good place to go to determine what's happening in the "average" D&D game. You would need to poll other communites to have some idea of what the game is like beyond our little borders.

Please note also that I am not saying that changing campaigns is bad; I am just wondering how much the shift in the game has led to this being more common. I would like to see a poll that compares behaviour in 1e, 2e, and 3e on this same topic.

EDIT: This would be my version: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=197606

(Note that I ask whether or not multiple campaigns are set in the same setting. This determines the value of working on setting details, rather than whether or not they are sequential, IMHO. If three people rotate DMing, but each does so within his or her own consistent world, you change worlds when you change campaigns, but the work done on the world is't wasted -- it'll come up again when that DM is in the limelight.)

 

[Hussar]

Sure. But don't forget also that many of us here (I wouldn't hesitate to say most) have also bought into the 3.X paradigm to a large degree. It has been pointed out, repeatedly (and I think correctly) that EN World isn't necessarily a good place to go to determine what's happening in the "average" D&D game. You would need to poll other communites to have some idea of what the game is like beyond our little borders.

Are you trying to suggest that the average D&D gamer hasn't bought into 3e? Cos, well, sales figures are pretty much against you there.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are you trying to suggest that the average D&D gamer hasn't bought into 3e? Cos, well, sales figures are pretty much against you there.

Yes, but consider the sales figures as provisional. We know diaglo, for example, loves OD&D as the Only True Game, yet has a vast collection of 3.X materials. Also, those sales figures would only be viable if we were able to determine

(1) How many people were still playing earlier editions, and

(2) How many people buy into 3e, and then quit the hobby.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm saying that we don't have the data to know.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, when I say "the 3.X paradigm" I don't mean merely the rules; I mean the core assumptions (XP, rate of progression, CR system, treasure levels, etc.). IMHO, I fall within the userset of 3.X (because my houserules are built on the framework of 3rd Ed), but I hardly fall within the paradigm.

RC