Why Worldbuilding is Bad

[Eltab]

And, as I stated in this thread, world building, outside of simply setting the scene, is, IMO, a complete waste of time and largely a pile of DM wankery. Set the scene, and get to the point. Worry about the entire royal family's family tree going back three generations is pointless. You have the king, you have the queen, you have a kid or three as needed by the plot and off you go. Done and done.

Oh look what you went and empowered, the thread is going to live - again - of its own accord !

I've found that as DM I can get lost in the weeds and my players won't mount an expedition to find me and bring me back. I'm a lore-o-holic.

But they did like when I introduced the Griffon Cavalry of Waterdeep into my Tiamat campaign and sent them on a quest to find some griffon-riding gear.
Had the campaign continued, their patron was going to make another cameo appearance riding a griffon (based on friend's experience learning to ride a horse).
For the final chapter of the book, they would be flown to Tiamat's Lair ... via griffon.

 

[pemerton]

It all depends on what kind of campaign you run (or want to play in).

My players tend to be very heavily invested in a good story. And so they care why things happen.

<snip>

Now maybe you don't care a lot about things like storytelling and character backstories, but I do, and so do my players.

I care about things like "storytelling" and character backstories. Having these in a RPG game is not dependent upon worldbuilding.

 

[Celebrim]

The necromancy of this thread and reading through it reminds me of two things.

First, how much I miss the presence of RC at Enworld.

And secondly, how much I miss when at Enworld we argued over games and other "great clomping nerdiness".

 

[Hussar]

Oh look what you went and empowered, the thread is going to live - again - of its own accord !

I've found that as DM I can get lost in the weeds and my players won't mount an expedition to find me and bring me back. I'm a lore-o-holic.

But they did like when I introduced the Griffon Cavalry of Waterdeep into my Tiamat campaign and sent them on a quest to find some griffon-riding gear.
Had the campaign continued, their patron was going to make another cameo appearance riding a griffon (based on friend's experience learning to ride a horse).
For the final chapter of the book, they would be flown to Tiamat's Lair ... via griffon.

See, to me, I don't really count that as world building. That's directly tied to the campaign and the PC's. The history of griffon cavalry would be world building, because, quite frankly, it doesn't really matter. But, the fact that you had it directly tied to the campaign, "they would be flown to Tiamat's Lair ... via griffon" makes it simply setting and adventure building.

 

[Hussar]

The necromancy of this thread and reading through it reminds me of two things.

First, how much I miss the presence of RC at Enworld.

And secondly, how much I miss when at Enworld we argued over games and other "great clomping nerdiness".

Y'know, I'm going to 100% agree with both of those statements.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Worldbuilding is taking a beating lately. Or I guess it always has based on the age of this thread.

It seems odd to me because I can’t imagine an RPG without worldbuilding. I think of that term as a pretty broad descriptor, and it seems like people have issue with a particular component of worldbuilding.

 

[Gilladian]

Ya know, as the DM for my group over the last 24+ years, I have an opinion on worldbuilding. It is what I do between adventures. It is MY fun. Is it always necessary? No. Do my players always care? No. But when I make sure that the dungeon theyre looting has 2nd Empire coinage in it, rather than the locally minted silver, and when, 2 campaigns later they find the same type coins with a different Emperor stamped on it, and they end up selling those coins to the same numismatist, my players get a kick out of it. And so do I. So I do it. As much of it as I want, when I want. With no particular end goal in mind.

 

[Caliburn101]

Sci-fi writer M John Harrison tells you why you don't need to spend hours crafting your campaign setting:



From here. Discuss.

1. Scifi writer and not a GM. He may be right about the kind of stories he wrote, but he was in control of where the characters went and how much needed to be known for that. Players rarely oblige with such 'script-on-rails linear progression through the story...

2. He never achieved the vast success of the LoTR stories and they had vast amounts of world building...

3. I have been GM'ing for 40 years and every time I have homebrewed having more detail in an evocative and inherently cohesive gameworld has led to a better campaign than those which didn't have that.

Every time...

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Sci-fi writer M John Harrison tells you why you don't need to spend hours crafting your campaign setting:



From here. Discuss.

Oh look, someone made the critical and laughable mistake of stating THEIR PERSONAL OPINION as FACT. Do we mock them or just shake our head and walk away?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ya know, as the DM for my group over the last 24+ years, I have an opinion on worldbuilding. It is what I do between adventures. It is MY fun. Is it always necessary? No. Do my players always care? No. But when I make sure that the dungeon theyre looting has 2nd Empire coinage in it, rather than the locally minted silver, and when, 2 campaigns later they find the same type coins with a different Emperor stamped on it, and they end up selling those coins to the same numismatist, my players get a kick out of it. And so do I. So I do it. As much of it as I want, when I want. With no particular end goal in mind.

I think this is what I told [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] in the 'newfangled' version of this thread, although I then went on to heavily espouse Story Now, No Myth style play that generally eschews world building. Still, I do plenty of it and have fun at it. William Gibson and co. may despise it, but luckily I don't live by his tastes, and he probably wouldn't want me to!