Worldbuilding - One of the joys of GM/DMing?

[Wyrmshadows]

I am an unashamed worldbuilder. I take pride in creating a setting with depth and versimilitude as well as from the immersion factor that such a setting gives my players who always enjoy interacting with a setting that seems real. Plus, there is a creative aspect of the process that is similar in many aspects to being an author, painter, musician, sculptor, etc. in which it feels good to create just for the pleasure of bringing something to life that perviously existed only in embryonic form in your imagination.

I love creating cultures and races or spinning familiar races and cultures into something a bit different and seeing to it that they are internally consistant and interesting. I love creating cosmlogies where there is a consistancy to the metaphysics, the deities, their servants, and the afterlife.

I love creating settings with depth and moral complexity where manichean alignment tropes aren't necessarily the primary motivations of individuals but instead the complexity of the human/non-human experience and their needs and desires as well as the political realities and necessities of the nations. Good vs. evil works but I prefer some added depth to conflicts.

I really enjoyed reading settings like Harn and Arduin as well as some of the 2e Forgotten Realms supplements like the Volo's Guides and Elminster's Ecologies which added depth without tons of additional crunch. Both myself and my players really enjoyed checking out a menu of an inn in Silverymoon and seeing it had actual regional foods. Little things like that add a great deal to the RPing experience IMO and the lack of such little details makes a setting IMO seem less alive.

It seems that recently there has been a "vibe" that seems to indicate that worldbuilding has fallen into disfavor. I know that there are other DMs/GMs who feel as I do in regards to the joys of worldbuilding and I want to hear your takes on the subject. Also, I am sure that there are those DMs/GMs who aren't worldbuilders and I'd like to hear from them too...though I will likely disagree with that point of view.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

World-Building can be fun, but sometimes I feel like risking to spend too much time on building a world then creating something my PCs can do whatever they want.

I have created two big worlds so far I used in actual campaigns (as opposed to using an existing setting and just set a campaign arc), and each time, i grew tired of DMing it eventually. Maybe it had to do more with the campaigns I was running then with building the world, but there seems always a time where I am running out of steam, so to speak. Where I feel I should shortcut stuff I wanted to do to get to the conclusion of the arc.

I think the PoL concept might help me greatly. Flesh only out the details needed for the next adventure or a few sessions.

 

[Roger_the_jolly]

World building

I enjoy building worlds tremendously, for many of the reasons you name, but I usually start in a rush and then later don't have the time to do a decent job (in my opinion).

Also, as I get older and have more demands on my time I find that my attitude changes - I still love creating, but it is so much work that today I rather pickup something well made and stimulating like the Eberron settings and just roll with it, creating on a much smaller scale.

 

[Psion]

I'm what you call a top-down world designer. I don't dwell on details (i.e., I could never write for AEG's Legend of the Five Rings games), but I like to drive my adventure ideas and games from the perspective of the histories and current personalities and nations of the world and their logical outcomes.

It seems that recently there has been a "vibe" that seems to indicate that worldbuilding has fallen into disfavor. I know that there are other DMs/GMs who feel as I do in regards to the joys of worldbuilding and I want to hear your takes on the subject. Also, I am sure that there are those DMs/GMs who aren't worldbuilders and I'd like to hear from them too...though I will likely disagree with that point of view.

Yes, well, as the saying goes, a few bad apples spoil the bunch. There are some GMs/designers out there who forget the fact that the main consumers of their creation are their players, and "geek out" on aspects of the world that are really not important to the players. So some folks come to the conclusion that "worldbuilder GMs are bad!!!!!!111eleven11!!!"

A good world designer picks their battles, concentrates their effort on stuff that matters and that the players are going to care about, and creates a rich and engaging situation to immerse the players into.

 

[EricNoah]

The beauty of RPGs is that you can have different strengths and weaknesses and still be a decent DM. I've never been a good world builder -- I get paralyzed by all of the details. And I'm not sure, frankly, that this is where I want to focus my efforts as a DM. What I want to get better at, instead, is reacting to what the PCs are doing and creating (or stealing) interesting setting material on the fly if/when necessary. My current homebrew is very fuzzy detail-wise. The drawback is I don't have tons of detail to draw upon at a moment's notice. The benefit is flexibility -- if I sense the PC party edging a certain direction in the campaign I can put more effort in that area as needed.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Problem with worldbuilding is it can be very offputting to new DMs. They may think they have to do a Tolkien-esque amount of work before they have the right to sit in the DM's chair. To encourage new DMs you want to remove as many barriers to entry as possible. That means points of light - the minimum amount of worldbuilding required to run a D&D game.

 

[Snoweel]

I used to be an obsessive worldbuilder and ignored all the advice from top DMs about only building what you have to and so on.

I have since learnt the error of my ways.

I'm what you call a top-down world designer. I don't dwell on details (i.e., I could never write for AEG's Legend of the Five Rings games), but I like to drive my adventure ideas and games from the perspective of the histories and current personalities and nations of the world and their logical outcomes.

This is sorta my style as well. I start with a very general world overview (and by world I mean continental sized area) and then start at the immediate campaign area and build out from there as the campaign dictates.

Yes, well, as the saying goes, a few bad apples spoil the bunch. There are some GMs/designers out there who forget the fact that the main consumers of their creation are their players, and "geek out" on aspects of the world that are really not important to the players.

That's the biggest problem with DMs who are worldbuilders first and foremost - they put so much effort into the little things that they treat their players (often politely hiding their boredom) like an audience for the "sheer thing of beauty" that is their homebrew.

Nobody's ever as excited about our setting as we are, and players want to be the ones to drive the story - not sit back and be chauffered around the DMs creation, no matter how rich and vibrant he thinks it is.

An aspiring DM is better served using his time and creative energy working with his players to build a saga - about the PCs - than treating his players like they are privelaged to be tourists in his creation.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I tend to agree that worldbuilding needs to be balanced with the needs of the game and the PCs. IME, I have noticed that an immersive setting is conducive to immersive RPing that that my players have always appreciated attention the attention to detail that can, at times, obsess me. I find that having a richly detailed setting helps the players know the fullest range of options available to them and the limitations of the settings such as which PrCs, classes, races, etc. are available.

To be honest, I am more than happy to add different touches desired by the players so long as everything can be thematically tied together. In fact, I found that my players take the game more "seriously" when things are nicely detailed. When we were younger, I noticed that their PCs tended to be more inclined to be killcrazy nutcases when they were playing in a DMs game where the setting was not belivable. My players take a lot of enjoyment in getting to know the setting and its characters (NPCs) and that knowledge motivates them on their adventures because one has more emotional attachment to that which is well known/defined.

I don't use a defined setting as a straightjacket. In fact, I find that as a DM, knowing the limits of a setting (either homemade or published) frees me to worry less about the details and get to the epic tales I am helping my players tell through the game.


Wyrmshadows

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I build worlds, but after a while my energy usually runs out and I think it's either due to me trying to build a consistent world or thinking about the amount of work required for DMing.

Trying to build a consistent world
I'm not a person who understands real life. My mind instead works on the action-movie principle: the only thing you need to worry about is "Is it cool?". However I frequently read peoples complaints on how they wish settings and/or games would be consistent with their fluff, so I worry and decide that I have to figure every or most things out logically. Then my brain starts to glaze over and I can't go on.
My dream is to write a setting where an unarmored swordsman riding a plain old horse can fight alongside a guy riding a hovercycle and firing a blaster and no one asks why the first guy doesn't upgrade. And not have to explain the logic.

Amount of work required for DMing
I fear that if I don't write down everything a player could know I'll get caught (and there are days when I can't improvise for the life of me). And it's 1,000 times worse if it's a setting where they have easy access to information (such as future settings with intergalatic internet). Again, brain glazes over.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

It seems that recently there has been a "vibe" that seems to indicate that worldbuilding has fallen into disfavor. I know that there are other DMs/GMs who feel as I do in regards to the joys of worldbuilding and I want to hear your takes on the subject. Also, I am sure that there are those DMs/GMs who aren't worldbuilders and I'd like to hear from them too...though I will likely disagree with that point of view.

Actually, no. It _hasn't_ fallen into disfavor with most GMs.

The people like me that _aren't_ into worldbuilding are the ones that are in the minority.

M John Harrison made a post to his blog (the blog is now gone) which created a huge storm when folks read it. Both writers (mostly amateur/wannabes) and GMs were almost universal in their condemnation of it. Search back through ENWorld, and you'll see all the people running around screaming about how worldbuilding is part of the reason why they GM, how dare he try and suggest that a "major" source of "GM Fun" is worthless, blah blah blah.

Here's what people started screaming about:

Every moment of a science fiction story must represent the triumph of writing over worldbuilding.

Worldbuilding is dull. Worldbuilding literalises the urge to invent. Worldbuilding gives an unnecessary permission for acts of writing (indeed, for acts of reading). Worldbuilding numbs the reader’s ability to fulfil their part of the bargain, because it believes that it has to do everything around here if anything is going to get done.

Above all, worldbuilding is not technically necessary. It is the great clomping foot of nerdism. It is the attempt to exhaustively survey a place that isn’t there. A good writer would never try to do that, even with a place that is there. It isn’t possible, & if it was the results wouldn’t be readable: they would constitute not a book but the biggest library ever built, a hallowed place of dedication & lifelong study. This gives us a clue to the psychological type of the worldbuilder & the worldbuilder’s victim, & makes us very afraid.

I'm actually one of the rare GMs that doesn't particularly care about worldbuilding and all that. I only want enough for the game to run on, and after that I don't care. If I need something, I'll make it. Chances are 90% of it isn't going to be seen by the players, and therefore I don't care.

I get that I'm in the minority, and that's fine for me. If someone wants to spend hours every week, carefully crafting the world and all that hey more power to 'em.

Me? I admit it. I agree with what M John Harrison said. I'm not going to drop into every thread there is and start talking about how folks are "wasting their time" with worldbuilding or whatever.

Because at the end of the day, playing and running RPGs is about _fun_ and if folks find that sort of thing fun, they should keep on doing it.

I'm not here to start a flamewar or whatever. Folks groove on it, and people having fun is what the hobby is all about.

But don't think that worldbuilding is somehow "out of favor" with most GMs. It isn't.